Just look at the map of counties and you can see that. When people bunch up in a big city do they become more liberal in their thinking than people in the country? Why is that do you think?
Just to clear up a point that manhattan made to me on another thread. Do all political post belong in the GD forum form now on? If they do fine, but it sure would be nice if someone could explain that to you without jumping down your throat.
Here’s a map if anyone wants to see the county-by-county vote.
The answer is very obvious.
We all know that city people are more sophisticated than the poor folk in the country. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the more sophisticated you are, the more likely it is you would be voting for a democrat.
Dang,
According to that map scratch ole George kicked algore’s but all over the place huh?
And freedom2,
LOL
Glad you’ve come around to the Liberal™ way of thinking, Freedom2. 
Now for your next session: Watch the shiny pixels in the corner of your screen…
[sub]…YOU ARE GETTING VEEEERY SLEEEEPY…[/SUB]
The more complex and interdependent a society becomes the more it relies on cooperative entities such as government. Rural societies are much more self-reliant than urban ones. It’s a much simpler matter for a family in a sparcely populated area to provide for their own protection and sustenance than it is for their urban conterpart. Without cooperation (read: government) the city dweller is doomed. It’s no suprise that many liberatarians prefer to live in the sticks, where government is least needed.
One of the major disagreements between the major parties is over the extent of the government’s role in society. City dwellers have a greater need for government, so they tend to vote for the party that favors the most government. People in less populated ares have less need for institutionalized cooperation and tend to vote for those that favor a more limited role for government.
Or because urban centers stand to benefit most from more goverment while rural areas benefit less. Because its seen as more necessary in the citys because its more present in the citys.
Having lived most of life in NYC, but moving to the country 7 years ago, I think I can provide unique insight:
The Rural folk see it this way:
Cityfolk are assholes. Therefore they are Democrats.
The City folk see it this way:
Rural folk are ignorant. Therefore they are Republican.
The truth is probably pretty close to what Fudd said, with a few alterations.
The rural society is probably more interdependant than the urban, due to the limited number of choices the rural citizen has as far as the purchase and sale of necessary goods and services. At least that’s been my experience.
While there is a lot more independence in the city because of choice, it is a much more complex society.
Rural areas, at least in the South, tend to be in the Bible belt. There’s a pretty strong correlation between conservative values and religion. There’s also a pretty strong correlation between the GOP and conservative values.
This analysis begs the question of why rural areas seem to be more religious. My guess is that it’s a self-selection sort of thing – if you’re a heathen, you move to the big city and bright lights 
Especially if you’re one of those sophisticated urbanites who get free cigarettes for voting Democrat, like in Milwaukee 
When Gore kept talking about “helping the middle class” he turned off all the farmers, storekeepers, and small businessmen. The may be middle class in every way, but think they aren’t. They see a whole state of middle class and decide they are in the top 25% so they must be rich. Actually, they just don’t know what rich is since they don’t see it.
The people who answer to “middle class” are in cities, where the upper and lower are obvious.
Oh yeah, the only problem is that most of the states Bush won don’t have many people living in them. Just a minor detail.
Gore did win the national popular vote. As far as I’m concerned it’s not a question of how much geographic area you win, but how many votes.
Last I checked, Gore was ahead of Bush by about 200,000 votes. Out of about 100,000,000 votes cast. So…that makes him about one fifth of one percent ahead. Is that right? Are those numbers still accurate? Or is he up to one forth of one percent by now?
Wow, what a landslide…
And your point is what? That it was a close election? We knew that. The OP was why in the more rural states, Bush was a tetch ahead and in the more urban states, Gore was. If you can shed some light on that, cool. If not, why not take it into one of the many Bitter {Democrat | Republican} Flinging Gas on the Fire threads.
The NY Times reports today that Gore has a nationwide lead of 328,696 votes, which is still less than 1% of the total.
I don’t see the Democrat/Republican battle as being urban vs. rural. There aren’t that many people who live in truly rural areas. It’s more of an urban vs. suburban battle. That’s the way California is now. Nearly every major city, with the exception of San Diego, is predominantly Democratic in California. However, the suburbs of the major cities (with a few exceptions around San Francisco) are Republican.
You could also look at the votes breaking even more sharply along ethnic or racial lines.
Now if Gore could only have finished coloring in all of New England and won New Hampshire, we’d all be done by now. Or else, we’d be fighting over the results in New Mexico instead.
The City contains the Projects and Ghettos. These people like Democrats because of the help and hand outs and food stamps, and government assistance…
The Suburbs have the richer folk who think they should not have to pay taxes to help other people. They think the other people should go get a job or something and help themselves…
I bet this has a lot to do with it.
I was merely responding to javaman’s post, which is directly above my post. The one where he brings up that Gore won the popular vote. I thought I’d clarify by how much Gore won the popular vote. That’s all. Don’t get your britches in a twist.
I wonder how far ahead Gore would be if they eliminated the illegal immigrant vote? California, a democratic stronghold, went to Gore big time. However, we acknowledge massive voter fraud as a matter of course. The attitude on voter fraud is “oh well, nothing we can do about it anyway”. It is probably the same in all the big, immigrant magnet, cities. Just think POPULAR VOTE = YOUR PRESIDENT ELECTED BY NON-CITIZENS.
“B-1” Bob Dornan brought up the illegal immigrant voting scenario when he lost his House seat to Loretta Sanchez back in 1996.
If anyone can prove that there is wide scale voter fraud going on in California, I’m sure California’s Secretary of State Bill Jones, would like to hear about it.
Al Gore won the state of California by over 1.2 MILLION votes. That’s an awful lot of illegal votes for the Democrats to round up.
I would like to see some evidence about such an allegation instead of a Pat Buchanan-like off-the-cuff claim.
Where to start…
First of all, the total population of the counties Bush won is larger than those that Gore won.
I expect that you will point out that this is not the criteria we use to determine our President. Of course, neither is the irrelevant popular vote figure.
First of all, that is not a true popular vote. No candidate was actually trying to win it and no voter was casting their vote according to it. We have a set of rules in place to determine the winner, and it is called the electoral college. That is the ONLY thing that matters.
If you would like for me to give you a lesson on why the electoral college is superior to a popular vote, just holler. I’ll be happy to enlighten you.
