USA TODAY has a map that shows the presidential election results by county. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Aint it the terrifing truth. So now what? What do we do about it?

OK, so Europe, which is vastly more urbanized than America, leans left. The cities are ever growing at the expense of the countryside... all we need to do is wait for the inevitable takeover of everything by the cities - which presents a problem for envionmentalists, as cities are, well, envionronmentally very unfriendly. A two-edged sword, there.

"What do we do?" Quite whining! Stop all this crap about moving to Canada. Soldier up. Unlike the soldiers in Iraq, we have a valid reason and the tools to be here, so don't live in the problem, think solution! Five dollar fine for whining in effect now!!! Get off our fat slacker azz's and fight for the land we love.

i can't believe that you can break the differences in this country between the rural and the urban, this is very shortsighted at best, i have always noticed how it does not matter the location, the education matters, there are college grads in the rural area as well as in the urban areas. they believe what they will, and it is as varied as it is in the urban centers as anywhere. i know for a fact the urban centers are full of short sighted, bigoted, idiots........as the back woods can be...........wake up. this is why geo bush is in the white house, will the intelligent in this country please come forward..thank you........you cousin, debra

Kerry won. It's doubtable evidence, but http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won.php

The county map is scarier. I think I chose the wrong country to adopt. In the 24 years I have been here I have seen it go from bad to worse. The main problem is the erosion of the educational system which has contributed to the proliferation of ignorant fucks all over the country. When you lose respect for teachers and start treating them like dirt you are lost. When sports become more important than knowing the world you live in, you are lost. Fear has become an integral part of most Americans, who talk big and shit bigger. As with all decadent societies, America appears destined to fall on it's face like a drunken Roman centurion hitting the floor in a vomitorium.

Interesting post, but I disagree with Mat's characterization of America's urban areas vs. the suburban/rural areas. Can you visit those pillars of modernity and true democracy, the federally subsidized housing projects and look at all the people therein who are gleefully embracing the Age of Enlightenment? Would you encourage your daughter to wander alone at night through Compton, or perhaps Detroit, to share ideas with the well read, informed, tolerant, and educated gangsters?

My experience has been that lots of people, regardless of where they live, suck. Some of them, regardless of where they live, don't. It's an error to pretend that rural America and suburbia have a monopoly on quasi-literate indifference and close-minded intolerance, and that the city is some utopia of brotherly love.

For years now well educated professionals have fled the decaying cities to suburbia. I'm a proud suburbanite - of the 6 neighbors I have met so far every family has at least one college graduate in it. (I know, Norm, I know. I'm committing a logical fallacy here - anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant. But I can't help myself. Show me some pity; I am a conservative after all).

I propose an alternative explanation to why the cities vote differently from the rest of the nation. I think that people in the cities come to rely on the government more than other people. There are, as stated, housing projects in big cities. There are homeless shelters. There are giant hospitals. Police, firefighters, and ambulances are only a few minutes away. There are unemployment and welfare offices handy. Government services are there, handy, and people come to rely upon them. Democrats have in the *good ol' days been the party that catered to this belief -- we'll take care of each other (whether we want to or not). That is, I think, one of the important reasons why cities tend to vote Democrat.

Out "in the sticks" it's a different story. They bulldozed a nice little forest to make our subdivision, and our home is a fair distance from anywhere. If I dial 911 it'll be at least 10 minutes before anybody can get to us. There are no food banks or shelters or even a hospital very near by (but there is a veterinary clinic!). We have the belief that we need to take care of ourselves because the safety net is a lot further away. A healthy lack of trust towards the government and a desire for more self reliance is what the Republicans used to preach, in the *good ol' days. That's my take on it ... perhaps I'm just projecting my opinions onto my neighbors, but it makes at least as much sense as Mat's explanation.

*Now it's all jumbled up and it pisses me off; the Republicans are acting all democraty (Bush and his prescription drug bill) and the Democrats are acting all republicany (Clinton takes a break from "working" in the oval office to toss millions off of the welfare rolls).

-Mike

the GOP platform is an isolationist platform which appeals to people living in rural areas, the financially elite, and bigots. anyone who lives in close proximity to other people and comes face-to-face daily with the wide range of economic and social problems in this country is going to be more likely to reject this isolationist platform.

a major problem is that the dems don't have a digestible vision, platform, or message. they're stuck just being "not the republicans." and as long as they continue they will be stuck on the outside looking in.

I see. I don't live in an urban center so I am "utterly stupid," drive a massive SUV, and want to "deny civil rights to anyone [I} don’t like or hate." How is this kind of stereotyping any different than the kind the Republicans used (effectively, I might add) to characterize Kerry as a liberal elite out of touch with mainstream America. And, by the way, the soon-to-be minority leader in the Senate grew up in a tiny mining town in Nevada.

"A healthy lack of trust towards the government and a desire for more self reliance is what the Republicans used to preach, in the *good ol' days. That's my take on it ... perhaps I'm just projecting my opinions onto my neighbors, but it makes at least as much sense as Mat's explanation."

Whether you trust the government or not in the sticks, your hands are outstretched to heartily grasp government and its collective wealth to prop up your communities just as much as large cities.

Self reliance? Mike, please. Without federal and state subsidies, your communities in the sticks could never afford to build the roadways you need, fund your schools, or provide affordable power, water, and sewage to your communities. And, God forbid, farmers would go belly up without the federal subsidies and price fixing that keeps them afloat and prosper. You could not pool your own wealth locally to provide these things as you do. If you think otherwise, then I am afraid you are living in a fantasy world. You are no more or less self-reliant than city dwellers.

And just so you know, in Philly we pay an additional 4.5% in income taxes to live here. So we are footing our own bill, being "self-reliant" as you say, not draining you country folk as you all think. Plus we provide the entire state of Pennsylvania the cultural and economic impact of our huge numbers in the city. Philly helps fill the pockets and bank accounts of the entire state. Plus we foot the bill in Harrisburg too (1.5 million state taxpayers in Philly, do the math), yet our rural brethren continually screw us out of our due share of the state coffers.

That, I think, is the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" thinking. Liberals know and understand the idea of collective civic responsibility. Conservatives USE the government and its collective wealth, but somehow think because they pay lip service to "self-reliance" and being "self-made," without even acknowledging that they could not, in fact, achieve any success without government creating the environment to prosper, is hypocritical at worst, a silly fantasy at best.

Back to the key issue (though I appreciate the good comments from Mat and Mike): a map colored according to who won a majority in a defined geographic area is extremely misleading. It tends to lead to the perverse conclusion that spread-out populations are more important than close-together populations. So on a map Pennsylvania looks "red" even though a majority of people voted for Kerry.

One explanation as to why people in cities are fundamentally more liberal than rural folk is that educated people generally must leave their rural homes to find jobs in cities. The closer you get to the city center the higher level of education necessary for employment. Rural folk are terrified of gays, city people are not. Gays live in cities, not in the sticks. Gays were forced out of rural areas by bigotry and were embraced for their other qualities in cities. Cities are better for it. Hicks lost a great source of creativity and intelligence. Good work, hicks. P.S. Cities are actually more environmentally friendly than rural areas because of such factors as population density, public transport, les lving space per capita, among others.

Though the urban/rural left/right connection had been made hundreds of times as has the educated/dumbasses one, there are millions of people out there that don't fit the normal stereotype of drunken redneck. In fact I got an email from an educated friend of mine on Wed morning that contained such a shockingly ignorant view that it troubled me. One part of the email read

"You live in the city so why you would vote for someone that the terrorists were also in favor of because he is not tough en ugh to take a stance I dont know."

I'm beginning to wonder if they watch the news at all in other parts of the country. Clearly it's not for a lack of education, but a lack of ignoring propaganda from the church etc. It may also be a case of the effects of one's surroundings. Take an educated person, surround them by evangelical rightists and before long they begin to believe in it. Truly shocking.

Though the urban/rural left/right connection had been made hundreds of times as has the educated/dumbasses one, there are millions of people out there that don't fit the normal stereotype of drunken redneck. In fact I got an email from an educated friend of mine on Wed morning that contained such a shockingly ignorant view that it troubled me. One part of the email read

"You live in the city so why you would vote for someone that the terrorists were also in favor of because he is not tough en ugh to take a stance I dont know."

I'm beginning to wonder if they watch the news at all in other parts of the country. Clearly it's not for a lack of education, but a lack of ignoring propaganda from the church etc. It may also be a case of the effects of one's surroundings. Take an educated person, surround them by evangelical rightists and before long they begin to believe in it. Truly shocking.

This is mostly true (with many exceptions) such as New England: Vermont is a rural state which is very liberal, and all of the rural sections of massachusetts are also strongly left wing.

Ignorance truly does abound in the south and the rual north to I suppose. Oh yeah and those darkies, and I've began to notice that men over six feet tall ... and oh yeah people who like sports are really... What about people who like math that is so stupid. Do I need immigration papers to move to one of them big ole cities. I would really really like to be smart to.

I forgot to thank ole Norm, I love the opportunity you have given us to blow off some steam. God Bless

I actually read all the posts above! Lots of fire there. While true that it may be a bit more complex and not as straightforward as we may like. The facts is the facts. Look at the blue & red state maps - they don't lie. The vast sweep of Red states, are rural. The vast sweep of Blue are closer to the denser populations - urban areas - bigger cities. It bears out even more clearly on the county maps. Generalizations are inexact, but often hold some truth. As an example, If you live in many areas of North Carolina, you live in urban sprawl. Many neighbors never have much contact with each other except @ church. There are no side walks, many people have very unfriendly dogs that roam unleashed. People drive to every single event in their life. There is very little bicycle commuting. All the life style realities stated above have an impact: These people are insulated, there is little diversity. The oppurtunity to get to know people different than you is dramatically diminshed. This in comparison to those living in a more dense population setting. I'm not saying that if you live in an urban setting some of these things don't also apply, but there is much more human contact. Much more diversity. You do learn to broaden your perspectives by living in an urban setting. This does not glorify urban settings or denigrate rural ones. But there are clear differences, and they add up to people being different. Unfortuanately one of the problems with making generalizations, is that people take it personal. That is not what this is about. It is merely trying to come up with the reason why there are blue concentrations in this nation and Red ones. Having lived in both settings, I believe the above generalizations are roughly accurate. And I'm only scratching the surface. Again I say, it is not exact science, and it is not personal.