What does blue/urban America see in the Democrats?

[Sage_Rat]

@Ulfreida

Well, my experience is that if you are bright, questioning, talented, or sensitive, if you are a woman, or Jewish or Asian, or Middle Eastern, or a homosexual person who wants to be treated as an individual rather than as a despised or even hated lesser class, and you get born in a typical conservative area, you get out of there as soon as ever you can and head for a liberal city where you stand a chance. It isn’t tribalism when you are pre-kicked out of the tribe just for not fitting in.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/11/data-most-american-neighborhoods-suburban/575602/

79% of kids are urban/suburban.

I agree that urban flight exists but it would be impossible for most urbanites to come from rural areas when the rural areas are in the minority source of people. And it’s unlikely that so many people move to the city from rural areas, if the rural areas are remaining populated.

To be sure, there is some truth in what you say. A smart kid will see something on TV and be attracted to it more since he innately recognizes that the other way of life is smarter. He’ll be different from the locals and want to leave. At some point, he’ll be able to vocalize what he had recognized to begin with.

But, we should be skeptical that this represents most people who move to the city. A gay kid, for example, has an extra motivation beyond basic philosophy, to hold a particular position. A girl child in a sexist region might be naturally independent, want to move to a place where she’ll be free to be her own boss, and care more about fitting in at that place than about philosophical arguments, so she studies up on city-folk-thought and prepare herself to accept whatever they’re all about.

And, of course, none of that applies to the children who were born in the city.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

It’s interesting that Velocity is the only person to use the word voters in this thread. There’s an obvious, gigantic, almost-all-consuming reason why urban America votes Democratic.

Democrats don’t try to suppress their votes. Republicans do. They even say so out loud these days. Trump said that if the states all had all voting by mail “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” The Speaker of the Georgia House earlier said the same thing. “This will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia,” Ralston, a Republican from Blue Ridge, said during an interview with FetchYourNews, a North Georgia news site. “Every registered voter is going to get one of these. … This will certainly drive up turnout.”

There have been hundreds of stories in recent years about Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to skew Democrats, or close poling places near them, or send them fraudulent election dates, or make lines hours long, or a zillion other ploys. Voters in those areas see these effects for themselves, though they may be invisible to rural voters in red states. The right has been doing this shit for 50 years, as detailed in this article. (Yes, it’s from the New Republic, which even I find gratingly ideological most of the time, not being a Bernie Bro, but this particular article is well-researched and straightforward.)

The Democrats may have flaws, he said in an understatement, but you have to be downright insane to vote for a party who works actively and tirelessly to keep you from voting. That’s why Republicans pretend to be shocked, shocked that some inner-city precincts vote 100% for Democrats.

Republicans are anathema to people who are its admitted targets. The number of groups on that target list gets longer every year. What do those groups see in the Democrats? A lack of a gun barrel pointed at their faces.

[septimus]

Thank you, Exapno Mapcase.

[FlikTheBlue]

@Sage_Rat

In both threads, there’s the underlying theory that people have reasons for doing things.

If you grow up in Pillowton and the Pillowton Cowhawks are the pro baseball team and, as you’re growing up, everyone is telling you that you need to support the team, wear the team colors, go to the games, cheer for your guys, and push new and younger people into doing the same - well, that’s what you do.

In the cities, for example, you’re told often and dogmatically that gay people are good, kindly people, who are being attacked for no reason, and who need to be supported. In the rural areas, you’ll be told often and dogmatically that gay people are people who live in sin, mocking God, and act at the devil’s orders to try and corrupt youth and lead them away from God’s laws.

Functionally, neither of these viewpoints is objectively correct and, more importantly, very few people have taken either of these viewpoints on through conscious consideration of the merits or pros and cons.

On this forum, perhaps, the average person might have a justification for their view. But even there, did you have the viewpoint before or after you found and understood the justification? Among the average middle schooler, what percentage of them do you think looked up a debate between a variety of philosophers on the subject and watched through to hear the different angles on the topic, went out to a nearby hill and sat on it staring up at the sky in consideration, and came down with a personal answer when they came down from the hill?

Our brain likes things which are familiar and that we’re already favorable to. It will always prefer an answer or justification that allows it to continue the status quo. If you backed gay people before you got to college, you’ll probably find a justification that allows you to maintain the view, and not challenge the view. You’ll be inclined to be dismissive of counterarguments and naturally favorable to ones that are already on your side. Years later, you’ll think that you made a clear decision on the topic and that you were completely rational in how you arrived at your current place in life.

And yet, there’s no reason to believe that you’re so different from a person who was raised 500 miles away in a red state, got similar grades in all their classes, and went to a college in Oklahoma. Somehow, that person will have come to the opposite viewpoint, through all the same processes as you, with all the same innate ability, and similarly come out thinking that he arrived there through full rationality and deep introspection.

You would not see the geographic divide on views if logic was really the underlying factor.

If you can see it on a map and it’s not a question of something like “Should the government give money to the rural folk or the city folk”, with a concrete and practical relevance to geographical considerations, then it’s tribalism, generational indoctrination, and propaganda and not anything else.

I think this somewhat misstated the Democratic position regarding LGBT people. It isn’t that they are good because they are LGBT, it’s that being LGBT doesn’t automatically make them bad. They should still be judged as individuals on their actions just like anyone else. I doubt that you will find many liberals defending someone like Joe Exotic or Milo Yiannopoulos just because they are gay.

[FlikTheBlue]

That one point specific point being out of the way, IMO there are several general points that break in favor of the Democrats. These aren’t true on all issues, but they do apply the vast majority of the time.

1. Democrats base their positions on reality while Republicans want to stick their heads in the sand. This is ultimately coming out in the form of Republicans attacking normal news outlets as promoting “fake news” while supporting right wing propaganda outlets. Specific examples include global warming (Republicans claim it’s a hoax), tax cuts for the rich (Republicans claim they will make the working class prosperous), and now most prominently the response to the coronavirus pandemic. The bury my head in the sand way of approaching life has no attraction for me, so the Democrats get this point.

2. Selfishness. The Republican philosophy these days seems to be about helping only me and my own, and screw everyone else. This outlook permeates every position the Republicans hold. The Democrats, on the other hand, do show genuine concern for others. Democrats are in the “a rising tide lifts all boats” camp. Another point in favor of Democrats.

3. Republicans are all about authoritarianism while simultaneously bashing those who are authoritative. They think Dear Leader knows more about coronavirus than Anthony Fauci. They think Dear Leader knows more about Russian interference in American elections than the intelligence officials do. They think Dear Leader knows more about running an aircraft carrier than the captain of such a ship who has spent his career training for that position. Obama would never have bashed authorities in their fields in such a manner, and in general Democrats don’t behave like this. Another point in favor of supporting the real experts and not the “expert at everything.”

I can cite many others if asked, but these are the big ones. On judging the facts, Democrats come down on the side of facing reality head on. On topics dealing with subjective / individual values Democrats are on the side of helping others and showing compassion. Republicans are on the side of “I’ve got mine so screw you” even in situations where they personally aren’t wealthy. In those cases they merely expand it to “my boss has his, and he earned it fair and square, so screw you.”

[BrotherCadfael]

@CalMeacham

Didn’t they prove that Pillowton Man was a hoax?

Cal, get outta my head! That was EXACTLY the reaction I had on reading that post!

[UltraVires]

@Pleonast

The Democratic party cares about individual people. The young, the hungry, the sick, the poor, the foreign, the helpless, the criminal, etc. And they want to help those individuals. The greatest commandment is “love God with all your heart and mind and soul and strength”, and the next is “love your neighbor”. America is the greatest country and it’s our Christian duty to use our blood and treasure to help all people as our neighbors. The Democrats will.

There is where you lose people like me who are rural, conservative Republicans.

We care about people as well. It doesn’t mean that the single and only possible way to do that is through massive government programs which creates generational entitlement and after a while, a complete inability of people to take care of themselves.

Such a thing is far more cruel than reasonable Christian charity sometimes accompanied by a swift kick in the ass if necessary.

What you posted sounds wonderful. Sounds almost like a utopia if the Dems were in charge. But what you have described is treating people like domestic animals, to pat on the head while you get to thump your chest and feel proud of all the charity you have provided, much like the Pharisees. However at least the Pharisees gave their own money and not other peoples’.

I provide absolutely everything my dog needs, but I (well our ancestors who domesticated him) robbed that dog of his ability to chart his own course. That’s what the Dem policies to do people. But, hey, it makes you feel good and more importantly, gets you votes.

And that is what this whole “voter suppression” thing is about. Nobody is suppressing votes. You (and throughout, the general you) want those people who you have made unable to get off of their lazy asses or participate is society by getting an ID to go to the polls to be able as easily as possible to keep voting for Dems.

But rant mode off, we care about people every bit as much as your side does. Every.bit.as.much. Your post is talking points and absurd ones at that.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@UltraVires

And that is what this whole “voter suppression” thing is about. Nobody is suppressing votes. You (and throughout, the general you) want those people who you have made unable to get off of their lazy asses or participate is society by getting an ID to go to the polls to be able as easily as possible to keep voting for Dems.

Right-wing leaders say there is voter suppression out loud. I believe them and also the evidence before my eyes.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Omar_Little

Hard to tell looking at their candidates.

White men still make up the bulk of politicians, but moreso for the GOP. Race appears to be a bigger discrepancy than gender between the two parties.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-24/despite-diverse-demographics-most-politicians-are-still-white-men

Despite white men comprising only 31 percent of the population, 97 percent of all Republican elected officials are white and 76 percent are male. Of all Democratic elected officials, 79 percent are white and 65 percent are male, according to the study.

A factor in the discrepancy, RDC says, is a problem with who runs for office. Of Republican candidates, 73 percent are white men and 23 percent are white women. Men of color make up 3 percent of candidates and women of color make up 1 percent, according to the study.

Of Democratic candidates, 55 percent are white men and 27 percent are white women. Eleven percent are men of color and 6 percent are women of color. White women make up 31 percent of the population; men and women of color make up 19 percent of the population each.

@Sage_Rat

1. I suspect that there are more gay people living straight lives in rural areas.
2. Claiming logic when one has a personal benefit isn’t strictly kosher from a philosophical standpoint.

In the book everybody lies about big data to determine what people are secretly thinking, the author says there is a fairly consistent 5% of people who search for gay porn irrelevant of geography. But in more conservative areas only 1-2% of people are openly gay, while in liberal areas its more like 3-4%. His assumption is everyone else is in the closet.

He also found that in areas with more abortion restrictions and fewer abortions, there aren’t more live births but there are more google searches for how to induce a miscarriage or abortion at home.

[Wesley_Clark]

@UltraVires

There is where you lose people like me who are rural, conservative Republicans.

We care about people as well. It doesn’t mean that the single and only possible way to do that is through massive government programs which creates generational entitlement and after a while, a complete inability of people to take care of themselves.

Such a thing is far more cruel than reasonable Christian charity sometimes accompanied by a swift kick in the ass if necessary.

What you posted sounds wonderful. Sounds almost like a utopia if the Dems were in charge. But what you have described is treating people like domestic animals, to pat on the head while you get to thump your chest and feel proud of all the charity you have provided, much like the Pharisees. However at least the Pharisees gave their own money and not other peoples’.

I provide absolutely everything my dog needs, but I (well our ancestors who domesticated him) robbed that dog of his ability to chart his own course. That’s what the Dem policies to do people. But, hey, it makes you feel good and more importantly, gets you votes.

And that is what this whole “voter suppression” thing is about. Nobody is suppressing votes. You (and throughout, the general you) want those people who you have made unable to get off of their lazy asses or participate is society by getting an ID to go to the polls to be able as easily as possible to keep voting for Dems.

But rant mode off, we care about people every bit as much as your side does. Every.bit.as.much. Your post is talking points and absurd ones at that.

And this is what those of us mean when we talk about ego being a huge factor in rural conservative support.

Sure everyone wants to believe they are clint eastwood. That they are so smart, competent, self reliant and tough that they can chart their own course. That they are smarter, more authentic, harder working and more self disciplined than those lazy inauthentic americans in the urban areas and the democratic party.

But the reality is most wealth in the US comes from urban areas. Hillary clinton only won about 500 counties in 2016, but those counties make up 2/3 of Americas economy. The 2600 counties Trump won makes up about 1/3 of the countries GDP.

Another Clinton-Trump divide: High-output America vs low-output America |...

The blue, urban counties pay the taxes to subsidize programs for the red rural counties. Medicare, medicaid, social security, farm subsidies, etc. Blue urban counties pay the bills then have to listen to condescending lectures about ‘the makers and the takers’.

Also those urban areas tend to be hubs of innovation and progress. Our medical, scientific and cultural advances come from urban areas. They aren’t hubs of laziness, they are where the advances in science, technology, medicine and art are coming from. They not only pay the bills, they will be where the cures for diseases like Alzheimers are going to come from.

Also republicans have admitted voter suppression is targeted at people who lean democratic and are less likely to possess a valid ID. Also in some states they discount IDs that democrats are more likely to have like a student ID. That is why courts have been overturning voter suppression laws, because they are surgically designed to suppress democratic turnout.

[Ulfreida]

@Sage_Rat

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

79% of kids are urban/suburban.

I agree that urban flight exists but it would be impossible for most urbanites to come from rural areas when the rural areas are in the minority source of people. And it’s unlikely that so many people move to the city from rural areas, if the rural areas are remaining populated.

To be sure, there is some truth in what you say. A smart kid will see something on TV and be attracted to it more since he innately recognizes that the other way of life is smarter. He’ll be different from the locals and want to leave. At some point, he’ll be able to vocalize what he had recognized to begin with.

But, we should be skeptical that this represents most people who move to the city. A gay kid, for example, has an extra motivation beyond basic philosophy, to hold a particular position. A girl child in a sexist region might be naturally independent, want to move to a place where she’ll be free to be her own boss, and care more about fitting in at that place than about philosophical arguments, so she studies up on city-folk-thought and prepare herself to accept whatever they’re all about.

And, of course, none of that applies to the children who were born in the city.

Most citizens of the USA are urban or suburban to start with, so that’s kind of a tautology there. But it’s pretty well documented that the rural areas are aging quickly. That’s mostly economic – no industrial jobs, small towns are dying, farm work can’t support even those who want to do that kind of labor. But it is also because the very white, insular rural population is a really uninviting culture.

I am not speaking from hearsay, or from an ignorant urban perspective. I have worked on farms on the west coast, rockies, upper midwest, and Canada. Nicest people in the world if they perceive you as like themselves. Hateful as fuck if they don’t.

Rural kids leave home to go to college, leave college to find a job in the city, and guess what they discover? DIVERSITY. They find out that their upbringing left out an entire world of different cultures, of different ways of thinking, that are clearly just as legitimate as their own and maybe more so. And that is why they can’t come back to Rush on the radio, shooting up stop signs, and thinking climate change is a liberal conspiracy. It is a lot harder to be an unconscious bigot if your roommate, girlfriend, professor, boss, are of a different race, culture, orientation than the one you were raised to think was the only possible right one. THAT is one of the big reasons that cities are full of Democrats. Because they meet people unlike themselves all day long, and see that they too suffer, struggle, and deserve the full rights of citizens.

[Ulfreida]

And no matter why people say, or think, they vote Republican, all the data shows that the most defining trait of Republicans is bigotry. There are other factors of course, but that is the big one.

[leahcim]

@UltraVires

There is where you lose people like me who are rural, conservative Republicans.

We care about people as well. It doesn’t mean that the single and only possible way to do that is through massive government programs which creates generational entitlement and after a while, a complete inability of people to take care of themselves.

Such a thing is far more cruel than reasonable Christian charity sometimes accompanied by a swift kick in the ass if necessary.

And yet, somehow, the “conservative Republican” policy never seems to extend beyond, “we don’t want the government program” to actually solving the problem.

It seems like the Republican party is the the party of excuses and platitudes. We hear it in a lot of areas:

[ul]
[li]The best way to elevate the poor is to give tax cuts to the rich.[/li][li]The best way to reduce gun violence is to make sure everyone can get a gun.[/li][li]The best way to help poor black people is to remove social programs so they don’t get dependent on them.[/li][li]The best way to provide health care is to remove regulations from insurance providers.[/li][/ul]

The common factor to all of these (and more) is advocating for the policies of Ayn Rand, and telling us that we’ll the same outcome as the policies of Jesus. And after decades of hearing these platitudes and not seeing the promised outcomes, we don’t believe (the general) you, any more more than we believe the drunk uncle at thanksgiving you starts every sentence with “I’m not racist but…” is not racist.

The actual goal of the Republican party is to do the first part – the lowering taxes, removing government programs, and cutting regulations. The rest is just stories to ascribe a higher purpose to the greed.

[bump]

I had voted pretty much Republican my entire life until 2016. I generally agreed with the idea that personal freedoms and less government regulations (within reason) are good things. I also believe in the idea that making lives better/improving things isn’t necessarily a prime function of governments. They’re there to provide certain common services that it’s not feasible or reasonable to do privately- stuff like a justice system, law enforcement, fire fighting, national defense, etc… Basically to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Insofar as those things improve lives and make things a better place for ALL of us to do our own things, that’s great. But it’s not the government’s job to say… entertain people, or make them happy or comfortable.

All that’s well and good; until about 10-11 years ago, I felt like that kind of thing was what the Republican party was mostly about. But with the rise of the Tea Party and the increased prominence of Evangelical Christians in the party, they’ve lost their way. They’ve twisted and perverted a lot of things, and become downright stupid on others.

So I’m voting Democrat for the foreseeable future. It wouldn’t be my first choice, but it’s by far the lesser of two evils- they’re not hateful, they’re not ignorant, they’re not anti-learning, and they’re not bigoted.

[Velocity]

@Ulfreida

all the data shows that the most defining trait of Republicans is bigotry. There are other factors of course, but that is the big one.

If I may junior-mod a bit, this thread is not “Republicans are bad.” It’s asking why blue voters vote blue.

[Acsenray]

@Velocity

If I may junior-mod a bit, this thread is not “Republicans are bad.” It’s asking why blue voters vote blue.

That’s probably a big reason why.

[Velocity]

@Acsenray

That’s probably a big reason why.

Right, but my point is, the focus is on the Democratic Party’s merits, not the Republican Party’s demerits.

[Sage_Rat]

@Ulfreida

Most citizens of the USA are urban or suburban to start with, so that’s kind of a tautology there. But it’s pretty well documented that the rural areas are aging quickly. That’s mostly economic – no industrial jobs, small towns are dying, farm work can’t support even those who want to do that kind of labor. But it is also because the very white, insular rural population is a really uninviting culture.

And? It remains that most urban people grew up urban and most rural people grew up rural. Telling me that something happens and happens regularly doesn’t mean anything.

Water regularly flows down mountains in large amounts.
The amount of water on land is miniscule in comparison to the amount in the ocean.

A large number of scientists believe that global warming is a myth.
An extreme majority of scientists believe that global warming is proven science.

These statements are not adverse to one another. Neither “many” nor “large” means “a percentile of sufficient degree to matter to the discussion”.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Velocity

Right, but my point is, the focus is on the Democratic Party’s merits, not the Republican Party’s demerits.

Negative partisanship is a huge factor in politics.

Democrats see republicans as dangerous, incompetent, racist, fascist, embarrassing, cruel, stupid, aristocratic, etc.

Republicans see democrats as naive, pussies, communist, unamerican, cowardly, incompetent at confronting danger, a threat to the economy and the social order, authoritarian, etc.

A lot of why people vote is negative partisanship. I don’t expect president Biden to accomplish much of anything, even with a democratic congress. I wouldn’t expect a president Sanders to do much either. But at least they won’t make things worse.

A lot of what democrats ‘see’ in the democratic party is keeping a lid on the GOPs destructiveness, same way a lot of what the GOP sees in the GOP is keeping a lid on the democrats destructiveness.

[Pleonast]

@UltraVires

There is where you lose people like me who are rural, conservative Republicans.

We care about people as well. It doesn’t mean that the single and only possible way to do that is through massive government programs which creates generational entitlement and after a while, a complete inability of people to take care of themselves.

Such a thing is far more cruel than reasonable Christian charity sometimes accompanied by a swift kick in the ass if necessary.

What you posted sounds wonderful. Sounds almost like a utopia if the Dems were in charge. But what you have described is treating people like domestic animals, to pat on the head while you get to thump your chest and feel proud of all the charity you have provided, much like the Pharisees. However at least the Pharisees gave their own money and not other peoples’.

I provide absolutely everything my dog needs, but I (well our ancestors who domesticated him) robbed that dog of his ability to chart his own course. That’s what the Dem policies to do people. But, hey, it makes you feel good and more importantly, gets you votes.

“That’s right, Jesus, I didn’t give you food or clean water or clothes or shelter or healthcare or justice when you needed them because you’d need more in the future” is not something I want to bank my salvation on.

I want my government to use the the power and treasure I give it to do things I want to do. There’s room for discussion about the best way to help people. The first step is helping individuals; the second step is helping them more; the third step is helping them the most. That is what Jesus would do. No point of the process is “don’t help”.