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.
Going back to "not all rural areas are the same", I have a friend who's from rural PA (though living in NYC now), rather devoutly christian, politically conservative but with a rather liberarian bent who find North Carolina (and I assume rural NC) somewhat culturally alien.
My father was a Republican elected official in Pennsylvania (councilman). There is a huge difference between a PA Republican (Rick Santorum notwithstanding; he'd make my dad turn over in his grave) and some of these other Republicans.
And you'll note there is no GIVE, repeat GIVE anywhere in there as you claimed there was. And again, I clarified my context again and again afterward, and my clarifications made no difference to you continued rebuttals. As I said, I'm moving on to Iowa vs. Nebraska (or south dakota for that matter) now. I'm interested in actually learing about the differences, not in getting bogged down in prior nitpicking.
uptown_urbanist brought up libertarianism as a potential factor in political attitudes. I'm interested in finding out how libertarianism plays into Iowa and Nebraska, if it does at all.
Going back to "not all rural areas are the same", I have a friend who's from rural PA (though living in NYC now), rather devoutly christian, politically conservative but with a rather liberarian bent who find North Carolina (and I assume rural NC) somewhat culturally alien.
And that again goes back to the point of defining "liberal" and "conservative" and defining their parameters. One can be fiscally conservative, yet politically liberal, etc. etc. etc. It's pointless to paint even the majority of the population of a rural, suburban or urban area with one brush.
My relatives in rural Pennsylvania are as politically conservative as they come, yet most are socially liberal on most topics.
On the flip side, I know plenty of people living in urban areas who are staunchly politically and socially conservative. Living in the cities hasn't made them any more liberal, under any definition, that's for darn tootin'.
Looks like one key factor is the decline of ag jobs and increase of high tech, financial services, and white collar jobs in the attempt to replace the ag jobs. Plus Iowa ranks 7th among all states in education, specifically % of residents who graduated high school. The Iowa article says that WESTERN Iowa is more agricultural and rural and more culturally conservative like Nebraska, with northwestern Iowa having a strong religious conservative contingent, fitting the trends discussed earlier in the thread. It also says that in central Iowa, Des Moines is more democratic but outside Des Moines is more rural and more Republican, again fitting the trends discussed earlier in the thread. It says that eastern Iowa is more democratic in general.
But it also says that the significance of the Iowa caucusses has made both Republican and Democratic ground game efforts significant, significant enough to cause more registered Democrats in 2008 but a closer match in 2012. I suppose it stands to reason that Democrats don't put a lot of effort into the ground game in states like Nebraska and South Dakota.
So it looks like what makes Iowa different from solidly red Nebraska and more progressive is a combination of:
1. High Democratic ground game effort due to Iowa caucusses
2. Decline of ag jobs with the 1980s ag bust and replacement with high tech and finance jobs and their tendency toward more educated progressive professionals
3. A Des Moines in central Iowa (urban influence) and a college presence in eastern Iowa (universities tend to run democratic)
4. More educated state population
That makes a lot of sense. And I HAVE heard before that uneducated rural people tend to be Republican. I think urban people tend to be more Democrat whether they are educated or uneducated, but perhaps education makes a big difference in the political tendencies of rural people. (Rural western Iowa is cited as just like Nebraska) And again of course we know institutions of higher education are predominantly Democrat. So that makes complete sense. If all of Iowa were like western Iowa, then it WOULD be just like Nebraska. Wow, didn't think the answer would come that easy. Glad I don't have to go searching the Iowa threads to find it! lol Thanks again!
That makes a lot of sense. And I HAVE heard before that uneducated rural people tend to be Republican. I think urban people tend to be more Democrat whether they are educated or uneducated, but perhaps education makes a big difference in the political tendencies of rural people. (Rural western Iowa is cited as just like Nebraska) And again of course we know institutions of higher education are predominantly Democrat. So that makes complete sense. If all of Iowa were like western Iowa, then it WOULD be just like Nebraska. Wow, didn't think the answer would come that easy. Glad I don't have to go searching the Iowa threads to find it! lol Thanks again!
Yes, Nebraskans are a bunch of uneducated rural hicks. Let's look at the stats:
High School Graduates: Nebraska 89.8%, Iowa 90.5% Huge difference here. And let's look at the rest:
As far as urban areas, Omaha has 400,000 people (800,000 MSA), Des Moines 203,000 with an MSA of 580,00.
Regarding colleges, surely you have heard of the University of Nebraska. When my brothers-in-law were in high school/early college, Omaha ran a publicly supported college called the University of Omaha, similar to CUNY. One of them graduated from the U of Omaha. It is now part of the University of Nebraska as well, became so when the other BIL was there. And maybe you've heard of Creighton University, too?
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-15-2012 at 05:21 PM..
The article about NE was interesting. I agree with this comment:
I am very disappointed in this analysis of Nebraska. While I agree that we have become largely a one-party state, we are given no credit for the populist roots of our state. And we are given no credit for the fact that the Democratic Party has carried a senate seat for decades and we have elected many Governors that were members of the Democratic party. At the same time, the article about South Dakota gives them credit for their populism and for electing Dems to the Senate and the House and completely ignore that they unseated Daschel when he was the majority leader. Give Nebraska the credit it is due here and help those of us members of the Democratic party that are still here in our fine state build some momentum!
I find it interesting that Iowa has a lower minority population than Nebraska.
If you look at the South Dakota article, it looks like South Dakota tend to have a weaker Republican lean every election by at least 10%:
Even withi very large cities theirre are difference in voting patterns. I mean when large urban areas get 80% of the poverty fundig by governamnt thru poltical power'what would one expect.It draws people who are dependent on governaqmnt. One can look closer and see these patterns in about any city of various wealth patterns also.Thenone can even look to unionized areas to be more democratic of course as they are a special interest group within the party itself as composed bt FDR.There is no mistery as to voting patterns.
Yes, Nebraskans are a bunch of uneducated rural hicks.
You said that, I didn't. Please stop taking my posts and twisting them to project what YOU want to claim they say. That's a really bad habit you got there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
As far as urban areas, Omaha has 400,000 people (800,000 MSA), Des Moines 203,000 with an MSA of 580,00.
Good for them. Maybe you want to tell that to the NY Times if you feel like helping them re-write the article. I'm content with the information the article provided. But thanks for the info anyway. It was also interesting to see that the population density of Iowa is more than double that of Nebraska. That helps explain things too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Regarding colleges, surely you have heard of the University of Nebraska.
Is their mascot a corn husk?
Anyway, I got the answer from the article to the question I had about the difference between Iowa and Nebraska. I'm not really interested in hearing much about the University of Nebraska, unless they happen to be good enough this year to be playing an SEC team in a college football bowl game. But even that wouldn't shed light on political trends, so never mind. I'm not interested in hearing much of anything about the University of Nebraska at this time. But thanks for thinking of me enough to want to share!
You said that, I didn't. Please stop taking my posts and twisting them to project what YOU want to claim they say. That's a really bad habit you got there.
Good for them. Maybe you want to tell that to the NY Times if you feel like helping them re-write the article. I'm content with the information the article provided. But thanks for the info anyway. It was also interesting to see that the population density of Iowa is more than double that of Nebraska. That helps explain things too.
Is their mascot a corn husk?
Anyway, I got the answer from the article to the question I had about the difference between Iowa and Nebraska. I'm not really interested in hearing much about the University of Nebraska, unless they happen to be good enough this year to be playing an SEC team in a college football bowl game. But even that wouldn't shed light on political trends, so never mind. I'm not interested in hearing much of anything about the University of Nebraska at this time. But thanks for thinking of me enough to want to share!
They are two different articles, written by the same reporter but interviewing different people. Different people gave him different information. I took those education stats from a link in the Iowa article. You can believe anything incorrect that you want; it just shows ignorance.
If you've never heard of the U of NE I'm not going to be the one to bring you up to speed, bub.
Enough bickering and attacks. Discussions on american geography with no connection to cities is best discussed in the general US forum. Now can we return to the topic of:
Do cities make one more liberal?
If we're discussing cities in general, as BIMBAM said, looking at other places and times than the recent US might be helpful.
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.
