It isn't Red State /Blue State as much as it is Red Rural / Blue Urban

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002278.html#2278

The states matter when it comes to electoral votes - but as far as sensibility goes - the divisions are by urban / rural more than by West Coast & New England/ Southern. There are just a lot of urban areas in the Northeast and on the coast of California.

And of course there are exceptions - but it's a pretty striking map.

I live in a rural area, myself - so I'm not against the rural life.

Our small towns are what tilted NH to Kerry and Lynch.

but they are really unusual when you look at the whole map.

from after election zogby poll. we felt he was losing support from his own, and he was. so we can embrace that too. embrace the truth not the lie bushco feeds us

Where most of the counties won by Kerry were rural counties.

And the population in those counties is by no means progressive (believe me), and not high tech. They are very fundamentalist, the drop out rates I would venture to say are very high, and the minority to white ratio is about average for the rural south. Yet Kerry carried about 15 of those rural counties. (There is a purple electoral map link that I've seen here today that is very instructive.)

The one thing that strikes me is that the unemployment rates are very high in many of the SC counties that went Kerry. I also noticed that many of them were for Gore in 2000.

Oh, and it's hard to keep reading all the 'southern cracker vote' pans. I'm even hearing it on AAR. Please. That's so discouraging to those of us who live here. Compare SC (over 40% Kerry) to say, Montana, or Kansas, or Missouri - how cracker are they? Christ, New Hampshire barely made the Kerry side of the column. Are they southern crackers?

Wat

Here in Arkansas, our towns aren't that big-Fayetteville isn't even 60,000-but it is considered an urban area and liberal. I'd also include Eureka Springs in the liberal category, if only for the gay community there.

There are pockets of progressives in rural areas-Newton County is notorious for us "neo-hippies"-but other areas where conservatives dominate-like Boone County.

were Marion (Indianapolis), Monroe (with Indiana University), and Lake (outside of Chicago).

In 2000 - there were some other blue counties - like St. Joe with South Bend and Notre Dame.

So it's seems fairly predictable - it's interesting to see where the "liberals" are.

This is something that I have been saying too. Urban vs. Rural. It has an even larger impact than race issues. IMHO.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

They want us to think in terms of "red state vs. blue state". It ain't nearly that simple. Why do they do it? To piss our brothers and sisters off when we diss a geographic boundry. It soldify's the opposition and demoralizes/isolates our people. I really think the RNC is pushing this "war between the states" memo to help maintain the fracture between Democrats....we cannot fall into that trap.

Check the overlay that plots population density (mountains) by "color"....quite revealing, I think.

I had seen a version of that by states - it's nice to see the details.

was further broken down by S Greenberg -Less Educated V More Educated.

IMO, all the frustration and confusion falls into two absolutely different world views. (Rural) Provincial World View vs(Urban) Cospopolitan World view. This often leaves us talking past each other.

This is what is so unfair. It is like palying one part of the country against the other. Because of the very different backgrounds and world views we would do well to get along and
show respect for each other. No one world view is better than the other and or more desirebale than the other.

addresses the needs of both. TThey don't have to be mutually exclusive, but accept that Democrats representing rural populations will be focused differently than those that represent urban areas.

Both groups need to be educated to understand this.

and sometimes neither.

Some issues seem different from the country as from the city.

Just thinking about gun control - it seems like such a different issue if you live in the proximity of gangs than if you think of guns as - for hunting &/or "here I am out in the middle of nowhere and I want to protect myself/family".

I grew up in a suburban area and believed in gun control. I think now - that that is one issue that doesn't seem as important as other ones - that it isn't worth fighting that battle and losing others.


I think there are other things like womens rights... we should be careful to consider the importance of family to rural people - and advance the idea that families are stronger if women are stronger and have equal pay, equal opportunities for career advancement and that sort of thing. Delayed childrearing can be a positive... Access to healthcare can be a family issue, etc.

Sometimes it can seem like resources/access all go to cities - so that could be something to think about too.

Democrats here seem to understand this idea.

and it has to be that rural people are just sheltered and not exposed enough to the rest of the world. Here's my idea: We have to start visiting our rural relatives and inviting them on outings to the city and around the world, etc. Perhaps we need to send them books, movies and some culture. Maybe we have to start educating these people one by one. Gay people, time to visit your cousins in Peoria. Heh heh.
BTW I grew up and still am rural. I know there are plenty of other rural liberals around, just not enough.

Don't accept the "Red state/Blue state" baloney.