Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide is Splitting America

[muon2]

The countryside wants/needs the gov't just as much as everybody else. All those long highways connecting them to the outside world didn't fall out of the sky. Nor did farm subsidies, Social Security, or any other government force they depend on. The difference is a matter of ethnic background. White people in most metros don't vote much differently than those in the surrounding countryside.

In Chicagoland the white vote in Chicago proper is heavily D. The nonHisp white population of IL-6 and 9 were similar in the last Congress before the remap. Yet since IL-9 went into the inner suburbs and the city it voted far more D than IL-6. Again, it's not about the government used, it's the perception of the amount of service needed.

There will be a small Dem push in some white urban neighborhoods from Jews and gays, both of whom avoid the countryside like the plague. Still, it's not like Northern Illinois is some Republican bastion outside of Chicagoland. The counties along the MS River have a small Dem lean while those in the interior have a small GOP lean. Cook County is 44% non-Hispanic white and voted 74% Dem. Lee County, to pick a random N Illinois rural county, is 88% non-Hispanic white and voted 45% Dem. The racial math is not all that different.

Jews and gays do not alone account for the difference between IL-6 and IL-9. Your example of Lee is a very rural county and is not to my point about the shift as density decreases through the suburbs.

Chicago proper voted over 80% for Obama in 2012, no? It's about 30% non-Hispanic white. What percentage of Chicago's electorate was non-Hispanic white?

It's not about Chicago as a whole. I'm looking at the north side up through the immediate suburbs to the north. This area makes up a good portion of IL-9 and is mostly non-Hispanic white. It also overwhelmingly votes Dem at all levels. Contrast that with similar demographic mixes in the middle ring of mature suburbs west and north of the city. The votes tend to far more balanced between the parties. Race and ethnicity alone cannot explain the difference.

[Torie]

Thinking about Muon2's density hypothesis, which is teased out after correcting for race and class, why do the Tories do so well in high income dense neighborhoods in England? Why does inner city Paris vote conservative? I might note that Newport Beach, CA is quite densely populated. The lots next to the bay are very small.

The ideological component of inner city dense living seems most common in the US and Canada. Why?

[traininthedistance]

Thinking about Muon2's density hypothesis, which is teased out after correcting for race and class, why do the Tories do so well in high income dense neighborhoods in England? Why does inner city Paris vote conservative? I might note that Newport Beach, CA is quite densely populated. The lots next to the bay are very small.

The ideological component of inner city dense living seems most common in the US and Canada. Why?

Because the right-wing parties are crazier here.

Or, to be less blunt, they are more in thrall to social conservativism, which is a mindset that thrives in rural agrarian environments, and is deeply distrustful of anything cosmopolitan as a "corrupting" influence.  Because, y'know, you go to the city, have to deal with people and viewpoints that are new and unfamiliar, and social liberalism inevitably follows because you have to jettison the old prejudices to get by.

The Tories may be to the right economically (at least compared to Labour), but they aren't going around trying to adopt personhood amendments or claiming that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that we're warming the planet is some sort of crypto-Marxist conspiracy of evil scientists.  So educated richers can vote for them in peace.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Thinking about Muon2's density hypothesis, which is teased out after correcting for race and class, why do the Tories do so well in high income dense neighborhoods in England? Why does inner city Paris vote conservative? I might note that Newport Beach, CA is quite densely populated. The lots next to the bay are very small.

The ideological component of inner city dense living seems most common in the US and Canada. Why?

Because the right-wing parties are crazier here.

Or, to be less blunt, they are more in thrall to social conservativism, which is a mindset that thrives in rural agrarian environments, and is deeply distrustful of anything cosmopolitan as a "corrupting" influence.  Because, y'know, you go to the city, have to deal with people and viewpoints that are new and unfamiliar, and social liberalism inevitably follows because you have to jettison the old prejudices to get by.

The Tories may be to the right economically (at least compared to Labour), but they aren't going around trying to adopt personhood amendments or claiming that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that we're warming the planet is some sort of crypto-Marxist conspiracy of evil scientists.  So educated richers can vote for them in peace.

Educated richers in the US still lean Republican overall, of course.

[Torie]

Thinking about Muon2's density hypothesis, which is teased out after correcting for race and class, why do the Tories do so well in high income dense neighborhoods in England? Why does inner city Paris vote conservative? I might note that Newport Beach, CA is quite densely populated. The lots next to the bay are very small.

The ideological component of inner city dense living seems most common in the US and Canada. Why?

Because the right-wing parties are crazier here.

Or, to be less blunt, they are more in thrall to social conservativism, which is a mindset that thrives in rural agrarian environments, and is deeply distrustful of anything cosmopolitan as a "corrupting" influence.  Because, y'know, you go to the city, have to deal with people and viewpoints that are new and unfamiliar, and social liberalism inevitably follows because you have to jettison the old prejudices to get by.

The Tories may be to the right economically (at least compared to Labour), but they aren't going around trying to adopt personhood amendments or claiming that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that we're warming the planet is some sort of crypto-Marxist conspiracy of evil scientists.  So educated richers can vote for them in peace.

So, in order to explain the differential in voting patterns of Europe and North America, the density proxy is more about the influence or tolerance of diversity, and less about Muon2's hypothesis that density qua density generates a perception of a need for a more robust level of public sector activity?  

[minionofmidas]

I think it's more that the educated rich in Central London and Paris and Scandinavia are still secure in the instinctive knowledge that they own the country and the government, and that when government becomes smaller, the parts of it that they use will never be affected.

[Torie]

I think it's more that the educated rich in Central London and Paris and Scandinavia are still secure in the instinctive knowledge that they own the country and the government, and that when government becomes smaller, the parts of it that they use will never be affected.

The "educated rich" in the US and Canada have no such sense of security?

[memphis]

The North Side of Chicago is very gay and Jewish. Maybe not quite as much as Manhattan, but it's up there. It's also not that white. I don't have the numbers for the new districts, but Shakowsky's old district was just 69% white. If you take out the gays and the Jews, it's questionable if the white would've voted for Obama at all Same for inner suburbs up there. Census has Skokie at 56% non-Hispanic white. Evanston's at 61%. Lincolnwood is 63%. Niles is 72%. Des Plaines is 68%. It's the white people in the Western burbs who are the weird ones. It's a lot like Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties, where white people in the urban areas vote roughly the same as white people in the rural areas, maybe a little more D because of the Jews and the gays.
Meanwhile the white people in DuPage and Waukesha counties are far more GOP than white people in either the city or the rural areas. This is only less noticable in DuPage because there are so many more minorites there than in Waukesha. Again look at NW Illinois for comparison. Knox and Whiteside Counties are both about 85% white and voted in the high 50s% for the President, even without the benefit of being a gay and Jew magnet. Even away from the river, the 85% white counties of Bureau, LaSalle, and Stephenson were essentially ties, with Romney winning by tiny, tiny margins. Heck, Carroll County is 95% white and voted for the President's re-election. There's a lot more going on than just county density. I don't see Chicagoland whites as being more Democratic than whites in NW Illinois.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think it's more that the educated rich in Central London and Paris and Scandinavia are still secure in the instinctive knowledge that they own the country and the government, and that when government becomes smaller, the parts of it that they use will never be affected.

The "educated rich" in the US and Canada have no such sense of security?

Such foolishness like the Tea Party (though there are a lot of rich people who bankroll it) is generally frowned upon in educated urban rich circles in America.

Also, keep in mind that the Democratic Party is hardly a "radical" party and I would think most educated richers know that.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The North Side of Chicago is very gay and Jewish. Maybe not quite as much as Manhattan, but it's up there. It's also not that white. I don't have the numbers for the new districts, but Shakowsky's old district was just 69% white. If you take out the gays and the Jews, it's questionable if the white would've voted for Obama at all Same for inner suburbs up there. Census has Skokie at 56% non-Hispanic white. Evanston's at 61%. Lincolnwood is 63%. Niles is 72%. Des Plaines is 68%. It's the white people in the Western burbs who are the weird ones. It's a lot like Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties, where white people in the urban areas vote roughly the same as white people in the rural areas, maybe a little more D because of the Jews and the gays.
Meanwhile the white people in DuPage and Waukesha counties are far more GOP than white people in either the city or the rural areas. This is only less noticable in DuPage because there are so many more minorites there than in Waukesha. Again look at NW Illinois for comparison. Knox and Whiteside Counties are both about 85% white and voted in the high 50s% for the President, even without the benefit of being a gay and Jew magnet. Even away from the river, the 85% white counties of Bureau, LaSalle, and Stephenson were essentially ties, with Romney winning by tiny, tiny margins. Heck, Carroll County is 95% white and voted for the President's re-election. There's a lot more going on than just county density. I don't see Chicagoland whites as being more white than whites in NW Illinois.

The western suburbs of Chicago have more "conventional' (read: Christian, family-oriented, straight, married with children) white people than the Jews, gays, singles, secular types of the North Side of Chicago.

[minionofmidas]

I think it's more that the educated rich in Central London and Paris and Scandinavia are still secure in the instinctive knowledge that they own the country and the government, and that when government becomes smaller, the parts of it that they use will never be affected.

The "educated rich" in the US and Canada have no such sense of security?

Certainly less of it in the US than in Germany or Canada, and less of it there than in France or Britain. Yes, I would think so.
It's of course related to the filthy rich of the US being a much less homogeneous bloc - the Paris and London elites are incredibly dominant. New York elites are under threat from, say, Dallas or Los Angeles elites with very different interests in a way that would be quite unfathomable in Chelsea and Tunbridge Wells.

[minionofmidas]

Bottom line, all this implies something positive about America and something negative about the Democratic Party (compared to other major left-of-centre parties).

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Maybe it has to do with the guiltily rich being different from the swaggering, guiltless rich.

[traininthedistance]

Thinking about Muon2's density hypothesis, which is teased out after correcting for race and class, why do the Tories do so well in high income dense neighborhoods in England? Why does inner city Paris vote conservative? I might note that Newport Beach, CA is quite densely populated. The lots next to the bay are very small.

The ideological component of inner city dense living seems most common in the US and Canada. Why?

Because the right-wing parties are crazier here.

Or, to be less blunt, they are more in thrall to social conservativism, which is a mindset that thrives in rural agrarian environments, and is deeply distrustful of anything cosmopolitan as a "corrupting" influence.  Because, y'know, you go to the city, have to deal with people and viewpoints that are new and unfamiliar, and social liberalism inevitably follows because you have to jettison the old prejudices to get by.

The Tories may be to the right economically (at least compared to Labour), but they aren't going around trying to adopt personhood amendments or claiming that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that we're warming the planet is some sort of crypto-Marxist conspiracy of evil scientists.  So educated richers can vote for them in peace.

So, in order to explain the differential in voting patterns of Europe and North America, the density proxy is more about the influence or tolerance of diversity, and less about Muon2's hypothesis that density qua density generates a perception of a need for a more robust level of public sector activity?  

It's probably a little of both, actually.

[memphis]

The North Side of Chicago is very gay and Jewish. Maybe not quite as much as Manhattan, but it's up there. It's also not that white. I don't have the numbers for the new districts, but Shakowsky's old district was just 69% white. If you take out the gays and the Jews, it's questionable if the white would've voted for Obama at all Same for inner suburbs up there. Census has Skokie at 56% non-Hispanic white. Evanston's at 61%. Lincolnwood is 63%. Niles is 72%. Des Plaines is 68%. It's the white people in the Western burbs who are the weird ones. It's a lot like Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties, where white people in the urban areas vote roughly the same as white people in the rural areas, maybe a little more D because of the Jews and the gays.
Meanwhile the white people in DuPage and Waukesha counties are far more GOP than white people in either the city or the rural areas. This is only less noticable in DuPage because there are so many more minorites there than in Waukesha. Again look at NW Illinois for comparison. Knox and Whiteside Counties are both about 85% white and voted in the high 50s% for the President, even without the benefit of being a gay and Jew magnet. Even away from the river, the 85% white counties of Bureau, LaSalle, and Stephenson were essentially ties, with Romney winning by tiny, tiny margins. Heck, Carroll County is 95% white and voted for the President's re-election. There's a lot more going on than just county density. I don't see Chicagoland whites as being more white than whites in NW Illinois.

The western suburbs of Chicago have more "conventional' (read: Christian, family-oriented, straight, married with children) white people than the Jews, gays, singles, secular types of the North Side of Chicago.

Do you think the white people in the DuPage are more "Christian, family-oriented, straight, married with kids" than whites in rural N Illinois? Cause they vote a lot more Republican than the rurals do.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The North Side of Chicago is very gay and Jewish. Maybe not quite as much as Manhattan, but it's up there. It's also not that white. I don't have the numbers for the new districts, but Shakowsky's old district was just 69% white. If you take out the gays and the Jews, it's questionable if the white would've voted for Obama at all Same for inner suburbs up there. Census has Skokie at 56% non-Hispanic white. Evanston's at 61%. Lincolnwood is 63%. Niles is 72%. Des Plaines is 68%. It's the white people in the Western burbs who are the weird ones. It's a lot like Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties, where white people in the urban areas vote roughly the same as white people in the rural areas, maybe a little more D because of the Jews and the gays.
Meanwhile the white people in DuPage and Waukesha counties are far more GOP than white people in either the city or the rural areas. This is only less noticable in DuPage because there are so many more minorites there than in Waukesha. Again look at NW Illinois for comparison. Knox and Whiteside Counties are both about 85% white and voted in the high 50s% for the President, even without the benefit of being a gay and Jew magnet. Even away from the river, the 85% white counties of Bureau, LaSalle, and Stephenson were essentially ties, with Romney winning by tiny, tiny margins. Heck, Carroll County is 95% white and voted for the President's re-election. There's a lot more going on than just county density. I don't see Chicagoland whites as being more white than whites in NW Illinois.

The western suburbs of Chicago have more "conventional' (read: Christian, family-oriented, straight, married with children) white people than the Jews, gays, singles, secular types of the North Side of Chicago.

Do you think the white people in the DuPage are more "Christian, family-oriented, straight, married with kids" than whites in rural N Illinois? Cause they vote a lot more Republican than the rurals do.

That's where economics comes in.

[memphis]

I sat down for a while and did some math regarding whites in Northern Illinois. Here's what I found. For my purposes, Northern Illinois includes the following counties: Boone, Bureau, Carroll, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Henry, Jo Daviess, Kane, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Rock Island, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago. Furthermore, I'm calling the following Northern Illinois counties Chicagoland: Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will.
A few points:
1. Whites in Chicagoland are almost exactly split in population between Cook County and the rest of the Chicagoland counties
2. About 67% of whites, who voted in Cook County, voted to reelect the President.
3. About 43% of whites who voted in the remaining Chicagoland counties voted to reelect the President.
4. About 55% of whites, who voted in all of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
4. About 10% of whites, who voted in both Cook and Lake Counties, self-identify as Jewish, about 2/3 of whom likely voted to reelect the President.
5. About 48% of whites who voted in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
6. Only 43% of whites, who voted in Winnebago County, the largest county in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President. Without the influence of Winnebago, the whites of Northern Illinois would have split their votes almost equally between the President and Mitt Romney.
7. Chicagoland's 55% vote for the President is roughly equal to Northern Illinois's 48%, once one takes Jews and gays into account. Any additional "urban effect" is limited to just a few points.
8. However, there is a great deal of polarization within Chicagoland with white Dems much more likely to live in Cook County and white Republicans much more likely to live in another Chicagoland County. This is clearly not merely the result of gays and Jews.

Whites voting to relect the President by Chicagoland county
1. Cook 67%
2.DeKalb 47%
3. Lake 46%
4. DuPage 43%
5. Will 43%
6. Grundy 42%
7.McHenry 41%
8. Kendall 40%
9. Kane 39%

[Franknburger]

I sat down for a while and did some math regarding whites in Northern Illinois. Here's what I found. For my purposes, Northern Illinois includes the following counties: Boone, Bureau, Carroll, Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Henry, Jo Daviess, Kane, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Rock Island, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago. Furthermore, I'm calling the following Northern Illinois counties Chicagoland: Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will.
A few points:
1. Whites in Chicagoland are almost exactly split in population between Cook County and the rest of the Chicagoland counties
2. About 67% of whites, who voted in Cook County, voted to reelect the President.
3. About 43% of whites who voted in the remaining Chicagoland counties voted to reelect the President.
4. About 55% of whites, who voted in all of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
4. About 10% of whites, who voted in both Cook and Lake Counties, self-identify as Jewish, about 2/3 of whom likely voted to reelect the President.
5. About 48% of whites who voted in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President.
6. Only 43% of whites, who voted in Winnebago County, the largest county in Northern Illinois, outside of Chicagoland, voted to re-elect the President. Without the influence of Winnebago, the whites of Northern Illinois would have split their votes almost equally between the President and Mitt Romney.
7. Chicagoland's 55% vote for the President is roughly equal to Northern Illinois's 48%, once one takes Jews and gays into account. Any additional "urban effect" is limited to just a few points.
8. However, there is a great deal of polarization within Chicagoland with white Dems much more likely to live in Cook County and white Republicans much more likely to live in another Chicagoland County. This is clearly not merely the result of gays and Jews.

Whites voting to relect the President by Chicagoland county
1. Cook 67%
2.DeKalb 47%
3. Lake 46%
4. DuPage 43%
5. Will 43%
6. Grundy 42%
7.McHenry 41%
8. Kendall 40%
9. Kane 39%

MAP (please..)

[memphis]

There's not much to map. Cook is 60+%. All the counties around it are 40%+.

[BaldEagle1991]

It's interesting to see how you're putting a lot of white Dems as "gays" or "Jews". There's also a lot of Athiests/Agnostics in that Chicago as well, and they're obviously going to be D like the gays and Jews. They also avoid the countryside like the plague. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

[All Along The Watchtower]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

lol, touche.

[memphis]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

Must everything be in black and white? It's not binary, of course. But there is an undeniable migration of gays frrom the countryside into major cities. As true in northern Illinois as anywhere.

[BaldEagle1991]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

Must everything be in black and white? It's not binary, of course. But there is an undeniable migration of gays frrom the countryside into major cities. As true in northern Illinois as anywhere.

Well I think that's obvious. Why would a gay person live in countryside America? Where almost everyone goes to church and has very little education.

[All Along The Watchtower]

from great atlas forum i learn that there are no gays in the countryside

Must everything be in black and white? It's not binary, of course. But there is an undeniable migration of gays frrom the countryside into major cities. As true in northern Illinois as anywhere.

Well I think that's obvious. Why would a gay person live in countryside America? Where almost everyone goes to church and has very little education.

Neither of those statements are actually true.