what policy differs bush and kerry in the northwest?

[opebo]

If everyone voted in their own best interest.  New England would be bloc GOP, the West and the Midwest would be bloc Democrat.  CA and WA would be GOP too.  Suburbia wouldn't be voting increasingly liberal as time passed.  MS would be 80% for the Dems and MA would be 80% for the GOP.  Pretty much everything would be reversed.

not that simple.  for example, many easterners, specifically Bostonians and Washingtonians, get 100% of their income from the Federal Government.  I know, I did for a long time.  Rich doesn't necessarily equal GOP.  Private Sector Rich pretty much does, though.  Your analysis is interesting, but your assumptions are faulty.

One isn't rich because one's salary is big - one is rich from return on capital.  If you're working for a living you're working class, whatever you make.  I think this misunderstanding of class comes from American's lack of respect for Leisure.

[classical liberal]

Rural unemployment bottomed out at like 50% when non-farm unemployment bottomed out at 6%.  Yet those people voted overwhelmingly for Bush, and will do so again this November.

[angus]

If everyone voted in their own best interest.  New England would be bloc GOP, the West and the Midwest would be bloc Democrat.  CA and WA would be GOP too.  Suburbia wouldn't be voting increasingly liberal as time passed.  MS would be 80% for the Dems and MA would be 80% for the GOP.  Pretty much everything would be reversed.

not that simple.  for example, many easterners, specifically Bostonians and Washingtonians, get 100% of their income from the Federal Government.  I know, I did for a long time.  Rich doesn't necessarily equal GOP.  Private Sector Rich pretty much does, though.  Your analysis is interesting, but your assumptions are faulty.

One isn't rich because one's salary is big - one is rich from return on capital.  If you're working for a living you're working class, whatever you make.  I think this misunderstanding of class comes from American's lack of respect for Leisure.

no I don't think there's any misunderstanding there.  we usually divide the working class into two groups labelled by the color of their collars.  This has more to do with educational levels than salaries.  I have held jobs in the past which required a PhD in science but paid less than the guy who emptied my trash.  No kidding.  I think Americans understand the difference between Leisure class and Working class, no matter what work you do and how much you make.

You do make an excellent point about stock vs. flow though.  Real wealth, which I have never possessed, is based on return indeed.  As I have no stock, only flow, I am not wealthy.  But I am in a sufficiently high tax bracket that Arnold now looks better than Gray, for example.  There was a point in there somewhere.  Oh, yeah.  It's that Private sector employees do have a vested interest in voting slightly differently than public sector employees, all other things being equal.  Yes, I think that's correct.

[opebo]

Rural unemployment bottomed out at like 50% when non-farm unemployment bottomed out at 6%.  Yet those people voted overwhelmingly for Bush, and will do so again this November.

Rural areas are hard to understand - for example why would anyone live there?  Even if you had money its not a pleasant place to live.

[bejkuy]

Rural unemployment bottomed out at like 50% when non-farm unemployment bottomed out at 6%.  Yet those people voted overwhelmingly for Bush, and will do so again this November.

Rural areas are hard to understand - for example why would anyone live there?  Even if you had money its not a pleasant place to live.

Where do I start?

I grew up in Portland, OR btw, not exactly backwoods.

1-I appreciate being able to leave my car and house unlocked without fear.

2-It's nice to have people raise a finger to you when you pass them on the road.  I guess they did that in Portland too, but it was a different finger.

3-The school systems in most rural areas have yet to be ruined by liberalism and crime.  

4- what better place to raise children.  My kids don't need sex ed to understand the miracle of life, they watch the cows!

5-in small towns you don't have to be a superstar to make a difference.

6-I don't have to explain to my children (at least as early) why there are two men making out on the street corner.  

7-In small towns, people aren't as caught up in their image (superficial stuff) and status.

I'll never go back to big city life!

[opebo]

Rural unemployment bottomed out at like 50% when non-farm unemployment bottomed out at 6%.  Yet those people voted overwhelmingly for Bush, and will do so again this November.

Rural areas are hard to understand - for example why would anyone live there?  Even if you had money its not a pleasant place to live.

Where do I start?

I grew up in Portland, OR btw, not exactly backwoods.

1-I appreciate being able to leave my car and house unlocked without fear.

2-It's nice to have people raise a finger to you when you pass them on the road.  I guess they did that in Portland too, but it was a different finger.

3-The school systems in most rural areas have yet to be ruined by liberalism and crime.  

4- what better place to raise children.  My kids don't need sex ed to understand the miracle of life, they watch the cows!

5-in small towns you don't have to be a superstar to make a difference.

6-I don't have to explain to my children (at least as early) why there are two men making out on the street corner.  

7-In small towns, people aren't as caught up in their image (superficial stuff) and status.

I'll never go back to big city life!

I think my priorities as a single male are a bit different.  Not planning on the family thing myself, but I'm happy for you

[nomorelies]

Some interests opinions on this issue. i have looked at the 2000 results in wyomming, north dekota, south dekota, montana and nebraska and the republicans are absolutely dominant. So the problem is with the democrats, but also the media in the areas. if people vote republican even though they will be effected economically, then they are stupid! you have to be, if your poor, and you still vote republican then you are stupid. The democrats have got to go into these states and tell them look "a vote for bush means you could lose your job.....a vote for kerry means you can keep your job. you are poor, bush gives a tax break to people who earn 200,000 plus, you dont make that in ten years, so why the hell would you vote bush. kerry will allow you to hunt, he will allow you to have a gun. your job will go to someone in shanghai, and your boss will back his bags and leave you, as he doesnt make a profit here no more. bush is risking your lifelihood with this agriculture deal in china. look what Walmart have done to convienient stores... this is a huge decision for the people in the northwest... and i am concerned as these are americans who could be on the poverty line shortly if bush is re-elected. Wisconsin is lucky that we have just enough people to beat bush, so it is plausible tht our agriculture policy may not suffer. our paper industry is under threat, but its not good for america if the northwest is in poverty.

[classical liberal]

FOX in DC is more liberal than NBC out in flyover country.  Local news reflects the culture of the region.  In any case the view of the Mountain West seems to be that their vote on social issues is more important than their vote on economic self-interest.  When you live that far from high-speed internet being commonplace, it's hard to be in sync with the liberal pop culture and liberal media.  Generally in remote locations the people are very religious and traditional.  That makes them avid GOPers.

[nomorelies]

but bush isnt helping them you prat, they have the same social issues and tradition views, economically they are different. just look at the policies of bush and kerry. its your stubborness to vote for a liberal eventhough hes protecting you.

[classical liberal]

Kerry isn't coming out to make the Bible part of the United States Code.  Bush is.  The ppl in flyover country don't think much farther than that.

[nomorelies]

the bible isnt owned by the republicans

[bejkuy]

Some interests opinions on this issue. i have looked at the 2000 results in wyomming, north dekota, south dekota, montana and nebraska and the republicans are absolutely dominant. So the problem is with the democrats, but also the media in the areas. if people vote republican even though they will be effected economically, then they are stupid! you have to be, if your poor, and you still vote republican then you are stupid. The democrats have got to go into these states and tell them look "a vote for bush means you could lose your job.....a vote for kerry means you can keep your job. you are poor, bush gives a tax break to people who earn 200,000 plus, you dont make that in ten years, so why the hell would you vote bush. kerry will allow you to hunt, he will allow you to have a gun. your job will go to someone in shanghai, and your boss will back his bags and leave you, as he doesnt make a profit here no more. bush is risking your lifelihood with this agriculture deal in china. look what Walmart have done to convienient stores... this is a huge decision for the people in the northwest... and i am concerned as these are americans who could be on the poverty line shortly if bush is re-elected. Wisconsin is lucky that we have just enough people to beat bush, so it is plausible tht our agriculture policy may not suffer. our paper industry is under threat, but its not good for america if the northwest is in poverty.

You are ignorant and bigoted in your analysis of these people, the people who make America great.

Not all Americans think that money is more important than doing what's right.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's impossible to generalise about rural areas... rural East TN and rural Mid TN vote opposite ways for example.

[angus]

It's impossible to generalise about rural areas... rural East TN and rural Mid TN vote opposite ways for example.

Al
I believe that's the diplomatic version of what I was thinking.

Bejkuy
I too think it is sane to forgo economic opportunity in order to right a wrong.  For example, I am a very strong proponent of good public education and think the government should spare no expense in that arena.  Even if that means that even though I could afford to send my family to good schools, I'd rather be taxed sufficiently to let all students in my district have an excellent education even if some of those students are an economic burden on my family.  But be careful, what is right is not always legal, and what is wrong is not always illegal.  The government cannot, in my opinion, legislate morality.  Have I contradicted myself?  I sometimes do.  dammit.

[angus]

acually I have thought about it a bit more.  

providing the best possible public education to all our citizens and aliens (legal or not) is a way to greater economic prosperity.  So if I give up some of my personal income, I am not forgoing economic opportunity, I am enhancing it.  there is nothing wrong with taking any element of communism (aka christianity) that we like and applying it, so long as it doesn't violate the supreme law of the land.

that's my current understanding.  at this moment.

[Gustaf]

acually I have thought about it a bit more.  

providing the best possible public education to all our citizens and aliens (legal or not) is a way to greater economic prosperity.  So if I give up some of my personal income, I am not forgoing economic opportunity, I am enhancing it.  there is nothing wrong with taking any element of communism (aka christianity) that we like and applying it, so long as it doesn't violate the supreme law of the land.

that's my current understanding.  at this moment.

But will YOU personally benefit from it? Not necessarily, thus you are doing it either for your country or for your children.

[bejkuy]

It's impossible to generalise about rural areas... rural East TN and rural Mid TN vote opposite ways for example.

Al
I believe that's the diplomatic version of what I was thinking.

Bejkuy
I too think it is sane to forgo economic opportunity in order to right a wrong.  For example, I am a very strong proponent of good public education and think the government should spare no expense in that arena.  Even if that means that even though I could afford to send my family to good schools, I'd rather be taxed sufficiently to let all students in my district have an excellent education even if some of those students are an economic burden on my family.  But be careful, what is right is not always legal, and what is wrong is not always illegal.  The government cannot, in my opinion, legislate morality.  Have I contradicted myself?  I sometimes do.  dammit.

I was reacting to the stereotype that those from rural areas are less intelligent than those from urban areas.  

I agree with what you say though.

[angus]

It's impossible to generalise about rural areas... rural East TN and rural Mid TN vote opposite ways for example.

Al
I believe that's the diplomatic version of what I was thinking.

Bejkuy
I too think it is sane to forgo economic opportunity in order to right a wrong.  For example, I am a very strong proponent of good public education and think the government should spare no expense in that arena.  Even if that means that even though I could afford to send my family to good schools, I'd rather be taxed sufficiently to let all students in my district have an excellent education even if some of those students are an economic burden on my family.  But be careful, what is right is not always legal, and what is wrong is not always illegal.  The government cannot, in my opinion, legislate morality.  Have I contradicted myself?  I sometimes do.  dammit.

I was reacting to the stereotype that those from rural areas are less intelligent than those from urban areas.  

I agree with what you say though.

yes I find that sort of condescending statement offensive also, but am unable to make a succinct diplomatic post like Al's.  I'm working on that.  

[angus]

acually I have thought about it a bit more.  

providing the best possible public education to all our citizens and aliens (legal or not) is a way to greater economic prosperity.  So if I give up some of my personal income, I am not forgoing economic opportunity, I am enhancing it.  there is nothing wrong with taking any element of communism (aka christianity) that we like and applying it, so long as it doesn't violate the supreme law of the land.

that's my current understanding.  at this moment.

But will YOU personally benefit from it? Not necessarily, thus you are doing it either for your country or for your children.

that sounds far too altruistic.  no, I'd say if I recognize that my people, my country, or my children benefit from something, then I am succombing to natural darwinian instinct.  Selfishness makes species stronger, to be sure.  Mother cares for her young because that's as close as mortal beings can come to a reasonable facsimile of immortality.  

[NHPolitico]

I have looked at Kerry and Bushs domestic policies, as Al Queda are never going to bomb the northwest states- i mean  nebraska,iowa, the dekotas, wyomming and kansa excluding oregan and wash - i cant understand how bush is helping them more than kerry. i know they are heartlands for the republicans, but bush has failed to give the agricultural trade enough subsidies, bush promotes foreign trade hence china will compete with northwest farmers produce. the gunlaws and hunting laws are the same, but kerry says he will keep jobs in america and make  10 million new ones. Yes, the people tell liberals to go to the twin cities if they have a hint of supporting a liberal but Surely, partisan family history must be removed for THEIR OWN LIFES. Kerry will help the northwest more than Bush. Am i wrong? Is this a plausible strategy?

Voters vote on personality. They want to know who they'd want to have a beer with or would mind seeing on TV for four years. Voters in those areas view the Republican "John Wayne" image and Bush's cowboy persona and they like them.  They want someone who doesn't think their culture is backward and stupid.  Kerry loses here.

[opebo]

Some interests opinions on this issue. i have looked at the 2000 results in wyomming, north dekota, south dekota, montana and nebraska and the republicans are absolutely dominant. So the problem is with the democrats, but also the media in the areas. if people vote republican even though they will be effected economically, then they are stupid! you have to be, if your poor, and you still vote republican then you are stupid. The democrats have got to go into these states and tell them look "a vote for bush means you could lose your job.....a vote for kerry means you can keep your job. you are poor, bush gives a tax break to people who earn 200,000 plus, you dont make that in ten years, so why the hell would you vote bush. kerry will allow you to hunt, he will allow you to have a gun. your job will go to someone in shanghai, and your boss will back his bags and leave you, as he doesnt make a profit here no more. bush is risking your lifelihood with this agriculture deal in china. look what Walmart have done to convienient stores... this is a huge decision for the people in the northwest... and i am concerned as these are americans who could be on the poverty line shortly if bush is re-elected. Wisconsin is lucky that we have just enough people to beat bush, so it is plausible tht our agriculture policy may not suffer. our paper industry is under threat, but its not good for america if the northwest is in poverty.

The Democrats can't change the fact that it sucks to be a workin' man.  Most of those rural types vote on culture/respect/affinity issues, not economics.

[classical liberal]

Guns will be a no-issue this time.  That's why W VA and possibly VA will go to the Dems.  Also why the Dems will actually break 30% of the vote in ID, UT, WY, ND, SD, NE, & OK.

[opebo]

Guns will be a no-issue this time.  That's why W VA and possibly VA will go to the Dems.  Also why the Dems will actually break 30% of the vote in ID, UT, WY, ND, SD, NE, & OK.

VA will go Bush.  WV who knows.

[classical liberal]

VA will be a tossup.  Bush won't win the DC suburbs this time.  The shift that that implies pust VA at like 48.5-48.5-3 with the 3 going to all 3rd parties combined.  The Southwestern areas that are essentially WV will probably shift away from Bush too.  That may be enough to tip the scales.

[angus]

Guns will be a no-issue this time.  That's why W VA and possibly VA will go to the Dems.  Also why the Dems will actually break 30% of the vote in ID, UT, WY, ND, SD, NE, & OK.

I haven't noticed any buzz this year on guns either.