The best election interpretation piece I've seen

From this week's Stranger:

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

I think it is well known that most democrat votes come from the cities, that is nothing new. however i am a democrat and i live in rural america. in fact, i was born and raised here and i won't ever live in a city - EVER. i don't think dems need to unite urban voters, i think they do need to do their damnedest to try to change the attitude of rural republicans.
that article put me off, because in effect, because i am rural it doesn't matter that i am a democrat so they don't care about me.

please do not forget about us rural progressives.

We are here, and we are growing.

And don't forget that a large part of the Democratic base is non-Caucasian. That population is growing too. Many non-Caucasian people are moving away from the cities. My area is becoming more diverse all the time.

In my rural county, bush got more votes than Kerry. But Obama beat Keyes overwhelmingly.

Maybe I am like some of the DUers from the southern states who don't care for the bashing they are taking. Rural Democrats worked hard for Kerry, and we always vote!

same ugly fate as the genuine rural staters. Not every "blue" person can move to an urban area just like that. It's a rather selfish agenda the author proposes that ignores the rural liberals.

the rural liberals would benefit from a Dem in the White House.

The goal is to win elections again. The author's premise is that we are wasting time standing in cornfields in Iowa trying to win over the GOP's base. We need to court those urban voters who either aren't voting or are voting for the GOP. The numbers presented early in the article make a compelling argument for this strategy.

i think that if the dems would turn solely to city issues, they would lose my vote. i would never go republican, but how could i ever relate to them if they refuse to relate to me.
Also, I lived in Dallas/Ft. Worth for 3 months of my life - never again, i will never live in a city again!

Is your precinct Dem?

i live in a red county and in a red state, unfortunately.
but if the democratic party turns its back on us red-state democrats, then why should we remain loyal? We can't be lumped with 'them' just because we live where we do.
Even though my vote doesn't do much were I live, i still get added to the number that voted democrat, and at least i get to say that i voted for change...

I'm genuinely curious. I live in almost rural suburbia - we have a winery and tons of agricultural nurserys about 2 miles up our road - so I see farmland all the time. But I haven't seen any particular divide in terms of issues. But maybe I'm just fooling myself.

- C.D.

ok, i admit, you had to make me think on that one! :)

well, for one, I am deeply concerned about the environment, but MAYBE in not the same way as some urban people are. I think smog and pollution are bad and something needs to be done, but that is not a big issue where I live. We don't have any smog here, light pollution is almost nonexistant - I can still see the stars at night when I'm in the middle of town, and the only concerns about water here is making sure there is enough. I am more concerned about conservation efforts of land and of wildlife.

I am concerned about cost of living and creating jobs. But again, I am fairly certain that I view that differently than city people. For example, I live in a town of 2000 people, so obviously there isn't much here. We pay $275/month for a 2 bedroom house (nice) approx. 850 sq ft, with an attached garage, basement, and a big lot. My husband works in this same town and makes $10/hr with full benefits. Compared to Hays (pop. 20,000), which is only 20 miles away and where I go to school, we would easily be paying twice as much in rent because of all the middle class people building houses they can't afford to pay for. New business are reluctant to come here without heavy incentives (we will be getting a Home Depot soon). The new business inevitably rise the cost of living, but they don't pay well at all, maybe $6-8/hr if you're lucky. There aren't alot of so-called professional jobs in the area. So, in a nutshell, I don't want to go broke paying rent, I don't want to be forced to communte because cost of living is too high, and I want jobs that don't take advantage of uneducated people.
I don't know if it is like that in the city or not, or maybe just on a different scale.

I am for farmers getting government support when they have bad years. But the farmers always vote republican...dunno why.

I am for cheap college tuition, which is why I attend the cheapest state university in kansas. This semester at Fort Hays State University was at $96/credit hour, compared to KU and K-state at something like $200/credit hour.

This may sound like an oxymoron, but I not for urbanization but I do want business to come to town. I like our super walmart and I am glad we are getting a Home depot. But on the flip side, we don't have many mom and pop stores anymore and I am for the preservation of family businesses.

You tell me if these ideas are different from an urban persons view. I really don't know, these are just a few things I could think of. If they aren't that different, then I guess I don't have much to worry about, do i.

here's the major strategy:

"And John Kerry won every city with a population above 500,000. He took half the cities with populations between 50,000 and 500,000. The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities."

We need to court these smaller cities because we are only winning half of them. This strategy makes more sense than wasting our time in rural, small town America.

That's just utter BS. Snobbery. A losing formula.

First off, the cities are filled with as many rubes as the sticks. Why else do so few people in cities vote? Only about half of the people voted this election. In general, people in rural areas are more likely to vote than people in cities. It turns out the "Get out the vote" drive by Democrats wasn't as effective as expected. Young people came out in record numbers, but only about half of them voted. Alot of minorities and single women also didn't vote. OTOH, why not go after rural areas? These people are politically active and more likely to vote.

The Democrat party has to think big tent. You won't win the election just by going after cities, not for a while anyways.

I do agree that sprawl needs to be reduced. Suburbia and ex-urbia are costing our country alot of money on infrastructure like roads and schools.

they're just venting. that's what the stranger does. they make some good points, though.

rural dems, we love you, but there aren't very many of you. the problems of the city & the country just don't overlap that much. for instance, i bet you can't imagine what its like to walk past ranting schizophrenics who might have concealed handguns. i DO IT EVERY DAY. can you see why gun control is more important to us?

many rural americans can go weeks without seeing a black person. i see every possible type of person, every day. can yo see why tolerance is more important to us?

i have had a crazed right wing extremist hunter with a gun safe filled full of guns point a loaded gun at my head. his reason was that he hated me... i was at his house to pick up my fiance. we found out later that he was allowing his son to make meth there. he was also an afterwork alcoholic... we have the same problems, they're just seen differently