What Explains The Partisan Divide Between Urban And Non-Urban Areas

[saveliberty]

Forbes:

Mark Hendrickson, Contributor

 

Op/Ed

 

 

11/15/2012 @ 6:30PM |11,816 views

 

What Explains The Partisan Divide Between Urban And Non-Urban Areas

 

Last week’s election results have given Republicans, Democrats, and political observers plenty to ponder. Various pundits have commented on the increasing importance of identity politics—that for many American voters, who they are and what they are, demographically speaking, predetermines which party they vote for. To the “who” and “what” factors, there is a third factor that seems just as important: where they live.

When looking at maps of the United States showing red for counties where the Republican candidate received more votes and blue for counties where the Democrats won, one can’t help but be struck by the predominance of red. Basically, the urban metropolises are Democratic blue and the vast expanse of most of the rest of the country is overwhelmingly red. If presidents were elected by acreage rather than by head count, Republicans would win national elections by landslides.

 

Look at it another way: take Philly out of Pennsylvania, the Big Apple out of New York, the Motor City out of Michigan, the Windy City out of Illinois, Cleveland out of Ohio, Milwaukee out of Wisconsin, St. Louis out of Missouri, etc., and a lot of blue states would instantly be red. What explains this pronounced and hugely significant partisan divide between urban and nonurban areas?

 

*****

H/T Instapundit

[saveliberty]

From a link in the article, another great read.