Which issue will hurt J.Kerry the most?

[dazzleman]

Gustaf,

As someone who has lived in both places, I can tell you that the North is perhaps more anti-South than vice versa...they just do it in a more subtle, condescending fashion.

I agree completely.  Northeasterns love to pat themselves on the back for their presumed cultural and intellectual superiority over southerners, and southerners pick up on this condescension.  Howard Dean positively reeked of it, and John Kerry will probably have a hard time suppressing it.

[dazzleman]

This is getting really emotional...

.
You have no idea how emotional class/cultural/regional issues are in the US.  Basically rural areas in most of the country, and the South as a whole, resent, even hate, the liberal urban elites (and coincidentally their poor racial dependents).  The urban leftist elites despise the above mentioned ruralites.  I can tell you that rural people who are nowhere near the South actually identify or at least strongly sympathize with the South.

Certainly. Politics and culture do tend to coincide. It is very interesting that on this board (and in real life) the conservatives are sympathizing with the South and the liberals aren't. Regardless of where they actually live. My region in N.C. has a relatively proportion of people who are either migrants from the North and/or liberals. Very few liberals here identify with the Southern culture even if they grew up here.

That's sad NCLib, that the native southerners have forgotten their roots. Their is so much culture and pride in being a southerner and giving it up for the ways of our Northern neighbors is depressing

As a subtext to the regional splits is the urban/rural split, which could be driving the regional split.

The northeast is the most heavily urbanized section of the country, and also the most liberal.  But even in the northeast, some the rural sections, such as parts of upstate New York and Pennsylvania, tend to vote Republican.

Rural states in the plains and west section of the country vote Republican.  Rural sections of California, Oregon and Washington vote Republican.  Urban parts vote Democratic.

Even in the south, urban areas vote Democratic.  There is a de facto alliance between sophistocated urbanites and poor minorities, although the so-called sophistocated urbanites would mostly run from any real association with minorities.

One interesting thing about the US, that is not true of Europe, is that there is a very strong and deep-seated anti-urban mentality, a feeling that cities are bad, and those who live in them are inferior.  This ties in with, and is reinforced by, the whole race issue, although it would exist even without the race issue.  The elites who live in cities, who are able to buy their way out of the deficiencies of city life (through private security, private schools, etc.) stay in the cities and, through their limousine liberalism, force detrimental policies on those who can't afford to buy their way out of the effects of them.  Non-elites who live in cities are mainly consumed with finding a way out, after which they join their new suburban neighbors in looking down on those who are still in the cities.

The more I think about it, I think the rural/urban split is even deeper than the regional split.

[dazzleman]

dazzleman,

I would agree that the rural-urban divide is also pretty strong, but that wouldn't explain why suburbs of Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc. are very conservative and rural areas along the Mississippi River and in New England tend to be moderate.

You're right.  It doesn't explain everything.  I think the political split is a combination of region and level of urbanization.

In addition to my other comments, I would also add that elite urbanites tend to look down on those who live in suburbs and rural areas.  On the other hand, non-elite urbanites are much more likely to aspire to living in the suburbs than to look down on them, since for them, suburban life generally represents a significant improvement over what they have in the cities.  As I said, those who are most positive positive about living in cities are those who have enough money to buy their way out of the deficiencies of city life.

[dazzleman]

Television vs. non-viewers, that is another Democrat vs. Republican, Urban vs. rural split.

That's very true, and part of the whole picture.  What we're talking about, in the regional and rural/urban split, is a large cultural divide, and television is a big part of it.

[dazzleman]

This is getting really emotional...

.
You have no idea how emotional class/cultural/regional issues are in the US.  Basically rural areas in most of the country, and the South as a whole, resent, even hate, the liberal urban elites (and coincidentally their poor racial dependents).  The urban leftist elites despise the above mentioned ruralites.  I can tell you that rural people who are nowhere near the South actually identify or at least strongly sympathize with the South.

Certainly. Politics and culture do tend to coincide. It is very interesting that on this board (and in real life) the conservatives are sympathizing with the South and the liberals aren't. Regardless of where they actually live. My region in N.C. has a relatively proportion of people who are either migrants from the North and/or liberals. Very few liberals here identify with the Southern culture even if they grew up here.

That's sad NCLib, that the native southerners have forgotten their roots. Their is so much culture and pride in being a southerner and giving it up for the ways of our Northern neighbors is depressing

As a subtext to the regional splits is the urban/rural split, which could be driving the regional split.

The northeast is the most heavily urbanized section of the country, and also the most liberal.  But even in the northeast, some the rural sections, such as parts of upstate New York and Pennsylvania, tend to vote Republican.

Rural states in the plains and west section of the country vote Republican.  Rural sections of California, Oregon and Washington vote Republican.  Urban parts vote Democratic.

Even in the south, urban areas vote Democratic.  There is a de facto alliance between sophistocated urbanites and poor minorities, although the so-called sophistocated urbanites would mostly run from any real association with minorities.

One interesting thing about the US, that is not true of Europe, is that there is a very strong and deep-seated anti-urban mentality, a feeling that cities are bad, and those who live in them are inferior.  This ties in with, and is reinforced by, the whole race issue, although it would exist even without the race issue.  The elites who live in cities, who are able to buy their way out of the deficiencies of city life (through private security, private schools, etc.) stay in the cities and, through their limousine liberalism, force detrimental policies on those who can't afford to buy their way out of the effects of them.  Non-elites who live in cities are mainly consumed with finding a way out, after which they join their new suburban neighbors in looking down on those who are still in the cities.

The more I think about it, I think the rural/urban split is even deeper than the regional split.

Where do you get the idea that we don't have rural/urban splits in Europe? The urban elite resent rural people enormously and have a very condescending view of them in Sweden, anyway.

I don't doubt that.  My impression had been that Europe didn't have the same deeply-ingrained notion of urban inferiority as the US does.

[dazzleman]

I hope that the whole gay marriage debate encourages people to look at what ails the institution of heterosexual marriage.

I agree that it is too easy to get married and too easy to get divorced, especially when there are children involved.  While the whole idea of marriage was to create an environment conducive to raising children, today many people see no particular need to raise their children inside a marriage.  The results have been an economic and social catastrophe.

No-fault divorce has effectively put the government on the side of the partner who wants to void the marriage contract, whether or not he/she has valid reasons.  The rejected marriage partner has no rights, especially if it is the wife filing for divorce.  This is especially true when children are involved.  It is a very sad situation, one for which feminists are largely to blame.

I told somebody I know who's gay to be careful what he wishes for when it comes to gay marriage.  All is not well with the institution of marriage in America.