Country vs City
She Who Must Not Be Named (because I'd hate for Kenneth to become an alcoholic) has developed a direct appeal to country voters which might rub city voters the wrong way. She hunts and fishes. She embraces rural expressions and simple, blunt speech. And so many voters get the impression she is, for all her faults, "one of us."
But this thread isn't about her. It's about campaign strategy. Is focusing one's attention on rural voters, to the point of annoying urban voters, really such a bad idea?
Look at this map:
Notice anything? Focus on the South... the oh-so-reliably-Republican South. The big cities aren't red, are they? Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, and every metropolis in Texas — they were all dominated by Democrats.
Big cities vote Democrat. Overall trends around smaller cities, like Mobile or Tulsa, are often more sensible. But why any Republican should care what voters in New York City or Houston think is beyond me.
Republican candidates should focus on appealing to rural voters, because that's who appreciates them. Big city journalists determine what makes it into TV reports and newspapers, so I'm not suggesting candidates ignore big cities entirely. But speeches should emphasize country values.
In other words, focus on voters who care.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Country vs City
You're forgetting the dynamics of media markets. Television, radio and newspapers are based in the cities. So you have to get your message out to the rural areas, while unavoidably communicating with the cities.
Feb '11
Re: Country vs City
As far as electioneering, shouldn't the strategy be whatever allows you to win the electoral votes of the state and then ultimately the electoral college?
If the Republican candidate wins Alabama by a little or by a lot, don't they get the same number of electoral votes (likewise with Obama and Massachusetts)?
So in a swing state focusing on the rural counties may be a worthwhile strategy, but what if winning the majority of the rural vote isn't enough to carry the state? I can see a scenario where a candidate wins all the rural counties but still needs a given number of votes in the metro areas to carry the state overall.
Sep '10
Re: Country vs City
I've found most rural folks generally not very interested in politics. (Perhaps it's because, in Kansas, political interest leading to activism often is just not critical for capturing the meager five electoral votes for the Repub Candidate). When I engage them, the most coherent political philosophy I can wring out of them is populism, to apply the most fitting label.
Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump, SWMNBN -- these political or pop culture figures are examples of those favored by a large percentage of country folk. They trust neither conservatives nor liberals. They trust neither big corporations nor the government, but, when forced to pick between the two, government is often slightly more trusted to serve (especially economic) justice.
So, campaign like a populist, get elected, then govern like a conservative.
Reagan wasn't exactly a populist, was he? How did he do it?
Aug '10
Re: Country vs City
The problem is that the blue spots usually make or break winning the electoral votes in a given state.
Jan '11
Re: Country vs City
Think Michigan or Illinois. The rural strategy works pretty well in Indiana and even that great bell weather Ohio.But when the time comes the folks will Love Who? Hint Drill baby Drill.
Re: Country vs City
Statewide elections are nearly always decided in the suburbs.
Feb '11
Re: Country vs City
It increasingly seems to me that a lot of the political/social/philosophical divides in our society are really a function of urban vs rural sensibilities.
Re: Country vs City
Paul is spot-on. Illinois is a good example. Chicago is overwhelmingly D; the downstate rural areas usually pretty reliably R. When the Chicago suburbs lean D or are evenly split, the Ds win every time. When the suburbs lean R by any measurable margin, as happened in 2010, the Rs can win (albeit narrowly). The danger with any "rural strategy" is not alienating the urban elites and urban masses; they're not going to vote for a Romney any more than for a Palin (well, not much more). It is the risk of alienating the educated, middle and upper-middle class suburbanites, who aspire culturally to the sophistication and standards of the urban elites, but whose values -- especially economic, but to some extent social as well -- are much closer to those of "rural" voters. To win nationally, a conservative candidate with "rural" values has to be able to express those in terms and speech that is not off-putting to the great mass of suburban voters. Reagan pulled this off brilliantly. Is there someone who can do this today?
Jan '11
Re: Country vs City
For as long as I can remember, Pennsylvania was split between the Democrat Philadelphia, the Democrat Pittsburgh, and everything else was Republican. More often than not, the cities won out. Frequently that meant that the Democrat machines would wait until the last minute to see how many votes they needed to win, and by the most amazing coincidence, produce that exact amount of votes. (They only produced enough to win; like Joe Kennedy, they weren't going to buy a landslide.)
In the last forty years or so, the cities have been losing population, bleeding into the suburbs. Many people see Bucks County and Montgomery County as the key to the election.
What's driving the Democrats in the suburbs is Women. The prevailing strategy there is to pander to "women" issues, which is to oppose abortion but assure women that they will decide for themselves. The assumption is that telling women "they will decide" will appeal to the liberals, and being "against abortion in principle" will soothe conservatives.
From a philosophical view, the "safe, rare, and legal" position makes little moral sense. But what it lacks in philosophy, it makes up in pandering politics.
Sep '10
Re: Country vs City
I believe that VDH has made the point elsewhere (I'm sure Dr Rahe can back this point up, or qualify it appropriately) that Greek city states showed the same urban/rural divide between broadly liberal or cosmopolitan and broadly conservative or rural.
Aug '10
Re: Country vs City
The problem with this is that it's one man one vote, not one acre one vote. Thus it takes a lot of red country to make up for a tiny blue dot city. You can see this more clearly in "cartograms": maps that are distorted so size is proportional to electoral weight. Not surprisingly, such a cartogram is roughly half blue and half red.
May '11
Re: Country vs City
I think that if a real conservative would just be that and forget about all this "Strategy" and "Electioneering" they would stand a better chance, I think most people anywhere are tired of politicians blowing smoke up everyone's behind.
You don't have to look up or poll your core beliefs if you have them.
Aug '10
Re: Country vs City
Tennesse is evidence of that. Metro Nashville goes Democrat. All of the eight surrounding "bedroom" counties go Republican.
Feb '11
Re: Country vs City
The breakdown in population as of the 2000 census was 21.0% rural and has trended downward since 1900. Unless you're going to have a multiparty system, you're not going to win elections with a rural-based strategy. Besides, such a strategy will get you lots of agricultural subsidies.
May '10
Re: Country vs City
I would argue the complete opposite approach is appropriate. Republicans long ago abandoned the city; conservatives offered no viable alternative for inner city problems other than to let urban decline continue. The Republican Party too often clinged to a laissez faire attitude rather than addressing issues with smart, small government, and pro-growth solutions. I am a staunch conservative but I do not blame my fellow big city residents for expressing a complete abandonment from Republicans.
This is why City Journal is one of the most important intellectual mediums of our time. What National Review did for the the conservative movement, City Journal has done and is doing for urban conservatism. I would also argue that, for all of his variances from the national Republican platform, Rudolph Guiliani was one of the most important conservative politicians in the past 100 years.
Mar '11
Re: Country vs City
Haha, OK, I wont.
I'm in Tucson (Gabby Giffords' district) - one of the blue sections down South. There is a very active Tea Party here, but I definitely feel outnumbered.
I remember going to a Tea Party meeting, then stopping off afterwards for a sandwitch at "Beyond Bread", near the University. There were 3 fellow Teabaggers with red T-shirts, among about 100 students and the Liberal elites who looked at us like we were from another planet.
But you only have to drive a few miles outa town, into the desert, and at one of my favorite Cafes tis not uncommon to see people sitting down with a gun in a holster, after Church...
So, yeah, we are a polarized country, between City and Country, and getting more so, I think.
Even Kenneth can't blame her for that.
Edited on May 24, 2011 at 7:27amJun '10
Re: Country vs City
It's self-selecting as well. It depends on if you like your surroundings made of glass and concrete, or made of soil and water. The soil and water folks have much less need for a big government. You don't need any government permits to apply rainfall to your soybeans. Not yet anyway.
Jun '10
Re: Country vs City
I'm wondering what the difference between the geography and the population density is. Is there enough difference to warrant a change in campaign strategy?
May '10
Re: Country vs City
The effects of population density on politics / culture seem to be universal across the world and throughout human history.
I suspect one reason is what I'll call ideological endurance. The more people and the more various their beliefs, the more often and strenuously you must defend your own beliefs. So there is a natural pressure in big cities, college campi, etc to resign oneself to multiculturalism and lukewarm belief systems, thereby avoiding conflict and being let alone to focus on worldly pleasures.
Greater cultural diversity requires more awareness of common ground. Apathy and hedonism can become that common ground.
I share Dan's impression that most country folks are apolitical. They will go on rants if politics is mentioned, but they generally ignore the subject and focus more on local news.
Well said. An ideal candidate is comfortable in both worlds.
Both content and manner are important. Candidates tend to meet only one of those conditions.
Sep '10
Re: Country vs City
Another approach we could look into is when a city becomes so large that it alone can dictate transfer payments from the rest of the state to itself, we should push for that city to become a city-state. Two major examples of this are Chicago & Seattle. I think that if stripped of the money from the transfer payments from the rest of the state the inhabitants of the city would be forced to address the local corruption and inefficiencies. This would lead to smaller gov't.