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.
"The Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation survey of nearly 1,700 Americans — including more than 1,000 adults living in rural areas and small towns — finds deep-seated kinship in rural America, coupled with a stark sense of estrangement from people who live in urban areas. Nearly 7 in 10 rural residents say their values differ from people who live in big cities, including about 4 in 10 who say their values are “very different.”
Rural Americans gave us Trump. They're the poorest, least educated, most drug addicted, least employed, cohort in America.
You must be one of the many poor and uneducated people from New Orleans that voted for Obama and Hillary.
There is not enough rural voters to put a president into power. States like Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota are only worth 3 electoral votes each.
You must be one of the many poor and uneducated people from New Orleans that voted for Obama and Hillary.
No, I live in NYC and have two Ivy League degrees, but thanks for playing.
NYC is rich, educated and booming, and Trump actually had his worst showing in the country in his home county- New York County. That's because we already knew he's a fraud.
New Orleans is much richer and more educated than rural America, BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76
There is not enough rural voters to put a president into power. States like Montana and Wyoming are only worth like 3 electoral votes.
You don't understand how elections work. Trump won by 8,000 votes in battleground states. He OVERWHELMINGLY won the rural vote, which consists of like 50 million Americans.
Montana and Wyoming have nothing to do with anything, BTW. They played zero role in the election.
There is not enough rural voters to put a president into power. States like Montana and Wyoming are only worth like 3 electoral votes.
But with a country that's nearly 50/50 divided, small shifts among voter-cohorts can make definitive impact. That's also the reason for animosity against "spoiler candidates" (Libertarians, Greens, etc.) - siphoning off say 3% of the voters, but with that perhaps being enough to sway the overall election.
As we've noted ubiquitously, rural voters are not a monolithic block, and indeed, the very term "rural" covers broad context and circumstance. An auto-industry executive working in downtown Detroit, who commutes 90-minutes each way from a farm 50 miles from Detroit, is "rural" - as is his neighbor, who is a 5th-generation farmer - as is the other neighbor, who's a meth-head in a trailer.
But the above notwithstanding, rural people tend to be more conservative than urban ones. That, I think, is not a controversial statement. What is more controversial is why so many conservative voters were swayed to choose a candidate in 2016 who by most measures is neither conservative, nor aligned with their core cultural values.
Very true. Clinton ran a poor campaign and didn't energize the base. But they are, nonetheless, solid Clinton territory, and much richer and better educated than rural America.
People like to joke about crime and the like in big cities. But the reality is that rural areas are MUCH poorer than big cities. The poorest parts of Michigan aren't in Detroit, far from it. It's rural areas that are poorest.
Rural Americans gave us Trump. They're the poorest, least educated, most drug addicted, least employed, cohort in America.
I think that stereotype belongs to the people that live in inner city slums who would have given us Hillary.
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.