Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As of 2010, 80.7% of the population of the United States lived in urban and suburban areas; less than 1 in 5 (19.3%) lived in rural areas. The "urban population" is broken into 2 categories; "urban areas" of populations of 50,000 or more (486 urban areas accounting for 71.2% of the nation's population and smaller "urban clusters" of 2,500 to 50,000 (3,087 clusters accounting for another 9.5%).
Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. He answered by saying, "that's where the money is."
Politicians concentrate on urban areas, because that's where the voters are.
As of 2010, 80.7% of the population of the United States lived in urban and suburban areas; less than 1 in 5 (19.3%) lived in rural areas. The "urban population" is broken into 2 categories; "urban areas" of populations of 50,000 or more (486 urban areas accounting for 71.2% of the nation's population and smaller "urban clusters" of 2,500 to 50,000 (3,087 clusters accounting for another 9.5%).
Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. He answered by saying, "that's where the money is."
Politicians concentrate on urban areas, because that's where the voters are.
Great post. Newsflash to rural voters: Bison have not been granted the right to vote. Acres also lack that right.
Just people, and urban America has the overwhelming majority of them.,
Bob, I live in one of the state's that is considerably more rural (Kentucky is only 58% urban) as opposed to the national average of 80.7%, but even in rural states it's the more urban areas that are growing. The three largest urban areas of Kentucky are Louisville, Lexington and the Northern Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati (Campbell, Kenton and Boone County). Collectively they were derisively called "The Golden Triangle" about 30 or 40 years ago by an Eastern Kentucky state representative because he said "they get all the gold" and the name stuck. They are linked by I-75 from Northern Kentucky to Lexington, I-64 from Lexington to Louisville and I-71 from Louisville to NKY. The farmland separating those three metros along those corridors has slowly been disappearing for 30 years. As those and other counties such as those on I-65 around Bowling Greeh grow, more isolated counties in far Eastern and Western Kentucky are shrinking. As more people leave isolated, rural areas for better job prospects in bigger cities, the nation's rural areas continue to bleed population, as they have for over 100 years.
Bob, I live in one of the state's that is considerably more rural (Kentucky is only 58% urban) as opposed to the national average of 80.7%, but even in rural states it's the more urban areas that are growing. The three largest urban areas of Kentucky are Louisville, Lexington and the Northern Kentucky suburbs of Cincinnati (Campbell, Kenton and Boone County). Collectively they were derisively called "The Golden Triangle" about 30 or 40 years ago by an Eastern Kentucky state representative because he said "they get all the gold" and the name stuck. They are linked by I-75 from Northern Kentucky to Lexington, I-64 from Lexington to Louisville and I-71 from Louisville to NKY. The farmland separating those three metros along those corridors has slowly been disappearing for 30 years. As those and other counties such as those on I-65 around Bowling Greeh grow, more isolated counties in far Eastern and Western Kentucky are shrinking. As more people leave isolated, rural areas for better job prospects in bigger cities, the nation's rural areas continue to bleed population, as they have for over 100 years.
As a 17 year Nashville burb resident, I'm familiar and concur. Tn has the same thing going on; growth in Nashville MTSA dwarfs total statewide other growth.
Bowling Green IMO is depressing now, although they have a great A if I recall baseball stadium.
Downtown though looks like the scene in Mn from Field of Dreams during daytime hours.
I don't think that this only about rural people. I'm from a rowhouse neighborhood, and I feel that the modern national Democrat party is contemptuous towards me and mine.
. We keep hearing about this "magical demographic shift" that will change things, but there is no evidence that this is going to happen anytime soon.
It's obvious you don't look at statistical data from prior presidential elections. The demographic shift has been occurring for 30 years at nearly the same rate. The shift has reached a point where it will have an impact on the presidential election in 2016 and even stronger in 2020 and 2024. Look at the data. It's free online with a few google searches. This is the evidence that you said doesn't exist. It's there - clear and easy to read.
The Democrats are gaining more hispanics and blacks and asians due to population increases of non-whites. The whites are gradually declining, slowly, year after year. This population shift, in turn, increases the percentage of non-whites within the Democratic party, simply because of the demographic shift. Whites still make up approx 63% of the Democrats. There will be fewer Republicans too, due to the same demograhic shift, unless the Republicans can figure out a way to respect and appeal to all races. They know they need to, but they seem to have trouble actually doing it.
Last edited by sware2cod; 09-27-2015 at 07:56 PM..
I would be happy with that, but it is also the true reason Republicans, conservatives, and far right wingers all want to suppress the voting rights because the less who vote, the better chances Republicans have in Congress.
It's obvious you don't look at statistical data from prior presidential elections. The demographic shift has been occurring for 30 years at nearly the same rate. The shift has reached a point where it will have an impact on the presidential election in 2016 and even stronger in 2020 and 2024. Look at the data. It's free online with a few google searches. This is the evidence that you said doesn't exist. It's there - clear and easy to read.
I've posted about a hundred thousands links that state the obvious, but none of you liberals wants to read them. Here we go again:
"Democrats maintained a large edge among Latinos voting in Tuesday’s midterm elections, but in some states, Republican candidates won more than 40% of the Latino vote, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of National Election Pool exit poll data as reported by NBC News."
And all the GOP needs is to get as high a percent with blacks and Latinos as Bush did in 2004 (11% and 44%, respectfully) and it's over for the Democrats.
Quote:
The Democrats are gaining more hispanics and blacks and asians due to population increases of non-whites. The whites are gradually declining, slowly, year after year. This population shift, in turn, increases the percentage of non-whites within the Democratic party, simply because of the demographic shift. Whites still make up approx 63% of the Democrats. There will be fewer Republicans too, due to the same demograhic shift, unless the Republicans can figure out a way to respect and appeal to all races. They know they need to, but they seem to have trouble actually doing it.
First, I just proved that's BS. Second, again, for the tenth time, WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS DOING TO WIN THE WHITE VOTERS THEY WILL NEED TO GET THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE RURAL VOTERS THEY WILL NEED FOR THE SENATE?
At least the GOP is trying...the liberals? They just say " bah! We can keep the senate without the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virgina, Indiana, Alaska, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Arizona. It's not like that's almost half the senate alone or something..."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
bah! We can keep the senate without the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virgina, Indiana, Alaska, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Arizona. It's not like that's almost half the senate alone or something..."
