American voters

[lifegazer]

I'm from England, but American politics have significance for the whole world these days, so I have been keeping a keen eye on things over the pond.

I couldn't help but notice how the republicans gained all the central states from north to south and how the democrats had the west coast and the north-east corner.
As an outsider, I'm curious as to why this should be.
Will somebody please explain.

 

[Richard G]

The dems reside in or near big cities, where Federally funded entitlement programs are targeted. For fear of losing big cash handouts [bribes], and welfare checks, the big cities vote democrat. The biggest cities happen to be on the coasts.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Aside from the asinine comments by certain people.............
The reason is that the coastal states like California and NY tend to be liberal/democratic and the central states tend (strongly) toward conservatism.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

What Till said. As a general rule the more rural an area is, the more conservative it will be, thus most of the heavily rural states are conservative and vote democratic.

Plus the south has "The Bible Belt" with a large concentration of bible thumping fundies (not that the rest of the nation doesn't have its share, but I doubt few Americans will disagree that Georgia, for example, is generally more religious than Vermont). And when bible thumping fundies are politcally active, they tend to vote Republican.

 

[lifegazer]

The dems reside in or near big cities, where Federally funded entitlement programs are targeted. For fear of losing big cash handouts [bribes], and welfare checks, the big cities vote democrat. The biggest cities happen to be on the coasts.

What do city voters, individually, gain from a democrat government?
I'm not sure I understand you.

 

[lifegazer]

Aside from the asinine comments by certain people.............
The reason is that the coastal states like California and NY tend to be liberal/democratic and the central states tend (strongly) toward conservatism.

Well I've noticed that myself. What I don't understand, is why.
There must be fundamental reasons for this.

 

[lifegazer]

As a general rule the more rural an area is, the more conservative it will be, thus most of the heavily rural states are conservative and vote democratic.

That doesn't explain 'why'. It just tells me how it is.
Plus, why did Florida vote for the republicans then?

Plus the south has "The Bible Belt" with a large concentration of bible thumping fundies (not that the rest of the nation doesn't have its share, but I doubt few Americans will disagree that Georgia, for example, is generally more religious than Vermont). And when bible thumping fundies are politcally active, they tend to vote Republican.

Why would a devout christian vote for Georgie-lad, considering his warmongering ways? Because George claims to be a christian too? Doesn't Kerry believe in God?
Forgive me for my ignorance.

 

[wageslave]

I'm also from England. The Labour Party, closest analogue in UK to the Democrats, have blocks of support in our cities; while the Conservatives, with similarities to the Republicans, get predominant support from rural areas.

In UK politics that dates back to power bases which involved Labour being backed financially as well as politically by the trade unions, whilst the farming community (represented by the Farmers Union) was historically pro-Conservative in the same way.

(The Farmers 'Union' isn't a trade union, more like a trade association. A group of independent rural entrepreneurs.)

I believe that the US labor unions have normally been aligned with the Democrats. Small and medium business owners may be more sympathetic to the Republicans.

That's one area of historical similarity only. It doesn't explain the whole picture of course.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

The dems reside in or near big cities, where Federally funded entitlement programs are targeted.

The real joke, as far as I can tell, is that in fact it's the exact opposite... As far as subsidies and entitlement programs go, it's the poorer Red states that benefit from the more industrialized Blue states....

 

[Bruce]

Why would a devout christian vote for Georgie-lad, considering his warmongering ways? Because George claims to be a christian too? Doesn't Kerry believe in God?
Forgive me for my ignorance.

That's the one thing that I've never understood about Christians in America. Most Christians in America are Republican Conservatives, but the very diety that bears it's name was perhaps the most liberal hippy to ever walk the planet. Don't ask me to explain it. It makes my head hurt.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That doesn't explain 'why'. It just tells me how it is.
Plus, why did Florida vote for the republicans then?

I am not exactly sure why it's that way either. I think it's just one of the many cultural differences between urban and rural America. These cultural differences have a zillion different root causes; tradition, differning levels of education, differning levels of religiousity, different things they want from government, different populations of different ethnic groups etc.

And as for Florida, well, I said it was a general rule, and rules do have their exceptions. Conversely, you don't get much more rural than Nevada and Kerry darn near squeaked out a victory here.

Why would a devout christian vote for Georgie-lad, considering his warmongering ways? Because George claims to be a christian too? Doesn't Kerry believe in God?
Forgive me for my ignorance.

Good question. You tell me and we'll both know. But I DO think the fact that Bush is one of them is the biggest reason. Plus he panders to them shamelessly and has managed to convince them that he shares their values. Further, US Christians are not necessarily put off by war. Don't ask me why, I'm not one of them so I don't know.

 

[cbish]

Lifegazer wrote:

couldn't help but notice how the republicans gained all the central states from north to south and how the democrats had the west coast and the north-east corner.

There are lots of reasons ranging from: urban vs. rural lifestyles & values; overall educational levels of urban vs. rural societies; international influences of coastal vs. inland communities.

One influence that is not talked about is our history. New England states have been established for quite a time longer than many of the western states. Moving out west during the "covered wagon days" was extremely hard and dangerous--lending itself to a more conservative/religious society. California, Washington bieng exceptions because of coastal influence. Remember, that we are really only a couple of generations removed from that and much of the psychology is still heavily ingrained.

 

[lifegazer]

I'm also from England. The Labour Party, closest analogue in UK to the Democrats, have blocks of support in our cities; while the Conservatives, with similarities to the Republicans, get predominant support from rural areas.

Well, Labour gets support from our northern cities and from nothern rural areas. It's just a north-south divide kinda thing.
I wouldn't class it as a rural-city divide, per se.

 

[CapelDodger]

The real joke, as far as I can tell, is that in fact it's the exact opposite... As far as subsidies and entitlement programs go, it's the poorer Red states that benefit from the more industrialized Blue states....

The in-breeds of the agricultural belt are indeed less productive than the more educated workforces of the industrial and financial cities. They generally fail to recognise agricultural subsidies as welfare, nor the strain their more-or-less indiscriminate whelping puts on the public purse. Belief in primitive religion tends to go with a population dependent on the land or on labouring to get oil out of the ground for the benefit of smarter New Englanders such as, say, the Bush family.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, Labour gets support from our northern cities and from nothern rural areas. It's just a north-south divide kinda thing.
I wouldn't class it as a rural-city divide, per se.

Yeah, but why is it divided north-south

 

[lifegazer]

Whilst I'm here, can I ask one more question please:-

In the UK, the liberals were and are a definite force in our politics, particularly in the past. So why is it that a choice of the US president ultimately boils down to two choices?

 

[lifegazer]

Yeah, but why is it divided north-south

The north-side divide in the UK can basically be summed-up by two reasons:-
(1) Generally, southeners have more money than northerners, whether they are city/town dwellers or farmers.
(2) There is northern resentment for being governed by people "down there".

 

[Rob Lister]

Whilst I'm here, can I ask one more question please:-

In the UK, the liberals were and are a definite force in our politics, particularly in the past. So why is it that a choice of the US president ultimately boils down to two choices?

You have asked many interesting questions in this thread. While I think I know the answers, I'm pretty sure I'm not able to supply them as well as others might (yet none so far have).

The answer to the quoted question is a good example of that. It's more complicated that just saying "republic" or "electoral votes" or "f...ing mainstream media". I bet someone will provide a great explaination. I also bet five Patricks and five Dorians will attempt to derail your understanding.

Good luck.

 

[Yahweh]

I'm from England, but American politics have significance for the whole world these days, so I have been keeping a keen eye on things over the pond.

I couldn't help but notice how the republicans gained all the central states from north to south and how the democrats had the west coast and the north-east corner.
As an outsider, I'm curious as to why this should be.
Will somebody please explain.

Most American Democrats and Conservatives agree on a lot of basic things: Pro-economy, pro-education, pro-military, anti-violence, etc.

A few possible reasons why the middle states seemed to support Bush are (according to my textbook):

* The Heartland of America is where the Bible belt is located, so there is much more social conservativism in the Heartland than on the Coasts. You would think people would have remembered that Kerry is a religious man and agrees with some socially conservative ideas, but then you'd be expecting too much out of Americans (it should be noted Kerry is socially liberal, meaning he will be less likely to criminalize abortion and gay marriage than Bush, which seems to be a very important issue in America today). White Anglo-Saxon People (WASPs) have a tendency to vote republican, and have a tendency to live in inner-states.

* What has been called the "White Flight" (yes, those are the actual words as they appear in my textbook) refers to a feeling of rich white Americans to relocate out of urban areas and into rural and suburban areas. This has a tendency to leave only poorer minority Americans in the large urban cities on the coast (low-income people are more likely to vote Democratic because the idea "The government takes care of the rich, the rich will take care of the poor" is only 1/2 correct).

* For a while, the South used to be heavily democratic. Since the 1980s with the advent of the religious Right, they have shifted to support socially conservative ideologies. The Black vote shifted from highly Republican in the 50s and 60s (because that was the party of Lincoln) to highly Democratic today due to low income and ethnic diversity.

* The Heartland is largely agricultural and business-oriented. Republicans are generally more willing to give businesses tax-benefits.

 

[CapelDodger]

The north-side divide in the UK can basically be summed-up by two reasons:-
(1) Generally, southeners have more money than northerners, whether they are city/town dwellers or farmers.
(2) There is northern resentment for being governed by people "down there".

There's an east-west divide as well. What we have is the south-east - the Home Counties and London - and the rest. 500 years ago Edinburgh, York and Bristol/Gloucester were major centres, but with improving communications economic and political power was naturally centralised in London. London being closer to the European action.

In the US, when serious expansion began in the 19thCE, the financial centres of the North-East owned it from the start. They'd also taken over the South, in economic terms - almost all Southern trade was handled through New York factors even in the 18thCE. Gentlemen, you see, did not concern themselves with such vulgar matters.

California, which wasn't wilderness and had established cities from its Spanish history, was an obvious choice for a new capitalist base. It also had enormous potential, which has been very effectively exploited. The Mid-West, on the other hand, produced the Dust Bowl and Elmer Gantry. And (in association with the South) The Future.

Time for a new secession?