TODAY I LEARNED - What a Detailed Map of the Election Results May Mean
I had an interesting conversation with a man earlier. If his insight is accurate, I learned something new today.
As he was considering the election results, he noticed a result map that showed the results by county. There is some variance, but for the most part, a lot of the Trump votes came from more rural areas, while the majority of the Clinton votes came from the cities.
The man who mentioned this to me had a hypothesis about why this is. His thoughts were that there is a different mentality between those who live "in the country and own their own land" and the majority of city dwellers who rent, and do not own much.
He also pointed out how the Clinton supporters reacted to the election results, and thought that this was evidence that his theory was correct. Basically, in many areas, a good amount of property was destroyed during the protests.
Since rural citizens only have their own property to destroy and the property of their neighbors, they do not generally react in this way, and have more of a respect for private property.
When people can be seen destroying private property in protests and riots, it shows that they do not share this perspective. Many rural folks know their neighbors and those who live nearby. This is harder to accomplish in the city, because there are so many more people.
When I lived outside of Madison, WI, I did not know any of my neighbors. When I lived in New Orleans, LA, I could travel around the block and not recognize the people who lived there. Now, even though I have only lived out in the country for one year, I know everyone within a few mile radius, but that is a whole lot less people thank lived within a few blocks of me when I was in the city.
Since I had never looked at it this way, it was interesting to get exposed to the idea. Though not every part of it may be accurate, and though each person (whether in the city or in the country) is an individual, there still may be some truth in his evaluation.
Or, maybe the "country folk" (except for @papa-pepper) are a bunch of out-of-date, backwards hillbillies.
I will continue to look into this, and what else I can come up with pertaining to the potential validity of this perspective.
I just figured that I would mention it to give you some food for thought.
Those were his thoughts, what are your?
I'm on the mobile today, so no fancy signatures, but this post is open for Operation Translation.
As someone interested in Social Sciences, this issue isn't exactly new.
Here are a few helpful articles (from 2013 and 2012) with similar results from the 2012 election:
What Is It Exactly That Makes Big Cities Vote Democratic?
And:
Red State, Blue City: How the Urban-Rural Divide Is Splitting America
Thanks for the links!
Though the info may not be new, I didn't learn about it until earlier, and it looks like not everyone agrees.
Thanks, I only just now learned that #til means "Today I Learned" from @the-alien in his post [Announcement] Jumpstarting New Tags, Rewarding Comments, Boosting Engagement and Going Viral!, so thanks!
The dissenters are welcome to read the articles and debate the data.
That tag was relatively new information for me too!
Same as the Brexit, nothing happens by accident.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
Good point @majes, and thanks for the link!
Sounds legit.
Thanks for sharing!
I believe that it could be a factor.
I believe the electoral college vs popular vote debate ties in with this also.
Agreed, it is a most interesting system.
Super post. There are sociological reasons that the oligarchy wants people to live in cities. People are easier to control if they don't have a strong community. If you don't know your neighbors, like in most cities, then it makes people much easier to fleece. That's why the UN projects urban population to be around 70 percent by 2050, because it's part of the agenda. Also, that's why so many movies glorify city life and make fun of the "country bumpkin" life. It's to subconsciously make people desire to live in the city. Maybe I should do a post about this......
Yes in deed, one only has to study the published works or the various thinktanks and we begin to see a plan.
This is why many science fiction writers seem to predict the future. It's a plan, and they were privy to it...
But I know the end game, and we win :)
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5)
Well said. Thank you.
That would make a great post!
I think it really boils down to people make people crazy. The closer you live to other people the crazier you are. I'm just basing this on my personal experience, but I think my wife is a lot crazier now after living with me for 30 years then when I first met her. Of course, it could just be prolonged exposure to me that makes people crazy.
I live near NYCity and I live in a very very mixed community. We live pretty close together and we all get along. We want to get along and we support everyone in all it's diverse glory. The folks in the rural areas are more isolated and not exposed to all the human differences.
The man who made the comment used to live near there too, so I guess opinions still vary...
In recent history, at least, rural areas tend to vote conservative, urban go liberal. It's an interesting tension in CA, where the coastal cities almost always vote liberal, but the inland areas go conservative. It's a very wide separation in the demographic that has prompted many to say that CA should split into two states.
I suppose that dividing would be easier than listening to all those coexist bumper stickers they keep putting on their cars... Oops, I didn't want to promote hypocrisy.
The more inner the city, the more there is larger government influence... jobs, handouts, etc. So for the mass populace there it pays to vote for the feeder.
that is not what is going on. Perhaps in Wash DC, but not elsewhere.
Interesting viewpoint.
People are becoming dependant on the government, which leads to bondage.
lol I live near madison right now
Right on, I'll be passing through in about a month.
I was in Sun Prairie at the time.
verona >>>
I know a police officer in that town... Long story, but a true one.
do tell :)
perhaps later...
I know certain officers for a variety of reasons...
Very interesting, it makes sense to me.
My 2 cents:
Hillary was the first lady when Bill was president, she had her chance to help people out at that time but did nothing. The first lady is the advisor to the president, and plays a big role in social activism, and don't forget her husband was the president.
Michelle Obama did more to help others as a first lady compared to Hillary. Michelle should run for 2020, even if Trump does a great job she would still win in a landslide.
I love Michelle and the Obama's. First class family. But I do not think Michelle would consider running, ever- I don't think she seeks to be in the political spotlight.
I am honestly surprised if that is new to you. Because people from the country have always (and in every country haha, bad word joke here) voted more conservative. Meaning both anti-change and anti-"strangers", which you could interpret as changing people anyway.
The reason for this is not property though (and Trump voters would have rioted if Clinton had won, and did so even before).
The reason is simply that people in the cities are USED to change. They often meet people that differ a lot (compared to country folk). They hear "strange" ideas a lot. They get accustomed to more things etc.
You can see that easily at "ethnic" food. For example where I live (former GDR) indian food was unknown since not so long ago. 2 years back the nearest indian restaurant was 30 miles away. So 90% of people have never eaten real indian food.
Then an indian restaurant opened. And it happened what always happened.
There were those who jumped on the opportunity and eat there the first week.
And there were those who said: Nah, I dont need that. I dont want that. My great-great-great-grandfather has never indian food, so I dont need it, too!
Of course there are a lot of shadows between those extremes, but that is what happens.
Now, the "try new" people are those who move to cities. Because they want the new things there or because they are less inclined to stay behind frightened. At the same time the "grandfather" types detest the change of the city (and in case of people, often get racist or anti-LGBT).
So you have a bias that progressive people flock to cities, where they find more opportunity to be progressive and more shades to move that progressiveness on.
On the country the opposite works in the same way. Someone who likes new stuff wont find it and nobody with whom he can talk about it. It may well be he is seen as a wired egghead by the other 142 people in the village.
Cultural change ALWAYS started in cities, and Trump is as un-change as you can get if you arent a mormon.
There are many, based on the comments below, who don't even believe it, so apparently I'm not the only once who hadn't considered this evaluation before.
Glad I found it ^^ If you read this carefully with my points in mind you will see that he is basically saying the same about teh difference.
http://boingboing.net/2016/11/23/vi-harts-statistical-perspec.html
Thanks! I appreciate that!
I'm with @lennstar on this one. Here's an example from my high school years. Our journalism class was coming back from a out-of-town multi-school conference. We stopped for dinner at a Swedish smorgasbord in Lindsburg, Kansas - a little town known for its Swedish heritage. We ended up leaving because some of the teachers and other kids were uncomfortable with the food -- the Swedish meatballs were just too weird. We went to get hamburgers. That story describes my town's overall worldview, too. I left the day after high school graduation.