Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >

City or country?

Posted: 6/2/2014 9:39 AM

City or country? 


This blog post dates back to just after the 2012 election, but I just ran across it and thought it was interesting . . . 

http://davetroy.com/posts/the-...ulation-density

Curious about the correlation between population density and voting behavior, I began with analyzing the election results from the least and most dense counties and county equivalents. 98% of the 50 most dense counties voted Obama. 98% of the 50 least dense counties voted for Romney.

He graphed the percentage of voters for Obama and Romney on the Y axis and population density along the X axis. The graphs show a cross over at a population density of around 800 people/square mile.

Later in the post, he suggests: Red state voters generally prefer low-density housing, prefer to drive cars, and are sensitive to gas prices. Once population density gets to a certain level, behaviors switch: high-density housing is the norm, public transit becomes more common, and gas use (and price sensitivity) drops.

Does that seem to fit?  Locally, it makes sense to me.  Davidson County is blue, but the surrounding counties are red. People like me choose to live in middle of Nashville, while people who want more breathing room, i.e., lower population density, choose to live further out. 

Does that generalization generally hold true?  Given your ideas about the ideal place to live, does it match up with the idea that liberals tend to prefer higher population density and conservatives less population density?

Obviously there will be exceptions, but at first glance, it makes sense to me.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 10:51 AM

Re: City or country? 


Groupthink
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:07 AM

Re: City or country? 


People who live outside of dense populated areas are generally more independent and responsible for their own lives, whereas the creature comforts of living in a place where you can purchase anything you need whenever you need it builds more reliance on others- to the point of demands..

I'm willing to wager it is fact that the further you get from a metro area, the larger pantries are in homes and the more food they store... I'm willing to bet that the further you get from metro areas the larger the market for seeds and means to cultivate your own produce far exceeds that of metro living- which is another indicator of independent personalities as opposed to expecting someone else to do something for you for fair exchange.

I'm also willing to bet that if you are driving through a rural area and suffer a breakdown, that someone is more likely to assist than in an urban area- and that their intentions are less questionable; which undermines the sense of community city types think they have over rural types and underscores that independent, usually conservative socially and economically people from rural communities DO, in fact, believe in assistance to and for their fellow American.. They don't just rely on a government provided freebie, nor do they expect it.

ALL of this can be collected in one sentence: City living makes people soft, soft people make demands they are unable and unwilling to pursue for themselves, and that influences their expectations and definitions of 'government'...

dang it..
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:09 AM

Yup... 


I've seen a similar study that showed that the farther away you live from your neighbor, the more likely you are to vote republican.  

Given their penchant for fear, hatred and paranoia, this would be expected.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:16 AM

Re: Yup... 



fuzzynavol wrote: I've seen a similar study that showed that the farther away you live from your neighbor, the more likely you are to vote republican.  

Given their penchant for fear, hatred and paranoia, this would be expected.

I'm impressed. (good point)

Everyone knows that inner city neighborhoods are safe and free of "fear, hatred and paranoia" and those in the country are thugs waiting to shoot you in drive-by turf wars. Progressive Liberals should all sent their children to inner city schools where they'd be safe.

FORWARD.......

 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:18 AM

Re: Yup... 



fuzzynavol wrote: I've seen a similar study that showed that the farther away you live from your neighbor, the more likely you are to vote republican.  

Given their penchant for privacy, freedom, and property rights, this would be expected.

Fixed it.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:18 AM

Re: City or country? 


give a man a fish... teach him to fish... who is the true friend, fuzz?

you continue to expound on something you don't understand as if it is a great evil, and unrelenting force...

now who's paranoid? Who's full of hate and fear?

just because it frightens you, fuzzy one, to be responsible for yourself without a safety net, doesn't mean it scares everyone, and doesn't mean they are isolating themselves from fear... it just means your flimsy grasp on them (and evidence of your lack of understanding of the world) invokes you to say stupid things like you did.
Reply | Quote
  • indyv
  • Head Coach
  • 14918 posts this site

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:40 AM

Re: City or country? 



drewactual wrote: People who live outside of dense populated areas are generally more independent and responsible for their own lives, whereas the creature comforts of living in a place where you can purchase anything you need whenever you need it builds more reliance on others- to the point of demands..

I'm willing to wager it is fact that the further you get from a metro area, the larger pantries are in homes and the more food they store... I'm willing to bet that the further you get from metro areas the larger the market for seeds and means to cultivate your own produce far exceeds that of metro living- which is another indicator of independent personalities as opposed to expecting someone else to do something for you for fair exchange.

I'm also willing to bet that if you are driving through a rural area and suffer a breakdown, that someone is more likely to assist than in an urban area- and that their intentions are less questionable; which undermines the sense of community city types think they have over rural types and underscores that independent, usually conservative socially and economically people from rural communities DO, in fact, believe in assistance to and for their fellow American.. They don't just rely on a government provided freebie, nor do they expect it.

ALL of this can be collected in one sentence: City living makes people soft, soft people make demands they are unable and unwilling to pursue for themselves, and that influences their expectations and definitions of 'government'...

dang it..
so maybe we should divide up all the land in the US and give each person an equal amount.....40 acres and a mule.....the Oklahoma land rush (of which the native americans were removed to make possible).....obviously that is silly, at least at this juncture of our history but if more and more of the nations land continues to flow like the nations wealth we will become no more that a feudal land lord nation of antiquity.....

the natural migration of people to the city is due to a country life not affording as much opportunity......it is inevitable and as Vandy pointed out the voting patterns reflect the country conservatism and the urban liberalism.....it probably will always be this way except fewer and fewer people will inhabit the wide open spaces and this of course will eventually lead to even more change
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 11:57 AM

Re: City or country? 



indyv wrote:
so maybe we should divide up all the land in the US and give each person an equal amount.....40 acres and a mule.....the Oklahoma land rush (of which the native americans were removed to make possible).....obviously that is silly, at least at this juncture of our history but if more and more of the nations land continues to flow like the nations wealth we will become no more that a feudal land lord nation of antiquity.....

the natural migration of people to the city is due to a country life not affording as much opportunity......it is inevitable and as Vandy pointed out the voting patterns reflect the country conservatism and the urban liberalism.....it probably will always be this way except fewer and fewer people will inhabit the wide open spaces and this of course will eventually lead to even more change
or.... until the liberal parasites completely absorb the efforts of the conservatives, and it cycles back around..

i say again, here, as I have in other threads- Conservative principles have provided an environment for the lavish notions of the liberal, which cannot survive without those conservative principles as it's backbone... the left has no idea, apparently, that by beckoning the demise of the right, they are cutting off their nose to spite their faces, and won't be able, or even know how to take care of themselves.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 12:06 PM

Re: City or country? 


Liberal: We

Conservative: Me
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 12:13 PM

Re: City or country? 



drewactual wrote:

I'm also willing to bet that if you are driving through a rural area and suffer a breakdown, that someone is more likely to assist than in an urban area- and that their intentions are less questionable
This is total BS, by the way.  I live in NYC and I see people happily helping out total strangers everyday.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 12:44 PM

Re: City or country? 



KnoxKid wrote:
drewactual wrote:

I'm also willing to bet that if you are driving through a rural area and suffer a breakdown, that someone is more likely to assist than in an urban area- and that their intentions are less questionable
This is total BS, by the way.  I live in NYC and I see people happily helping out total strangers everyday.
I bet they're all from rural communities supplanted in that horrid wreck of a society.... 

what was it Gerry Rafferty said? "this city desert makes you feel so cold it's got so many people but it's got no soul.. it's taken you so long to find out you were wrong when you thought it held everything..."

how do you people eat? where are your corn fields and wheat fields? Where are your dairy cows and chicken farms? ...... again, your entire style of life is off the backs of the people you hold in scorn who are responsible for themselves and live conservative lifestyles... yeah, the symbiosis of the cultures are real as there are some pretty dang wealthy farmers (which are now predominantly foreign owned corporations DUE to the waning symbiosis), but make no mistake about it- without the conservatives behind every scene, your liberalism would not breath a breath of air..  

again... the product of conservative practices allows for liberals to exist.  you guys can't live without conservatives, though conservatives can do very well without y'all.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 1:14 PM

Re: City or country? 



KnoxKid wrote:
This is total BS, by the way.  I live in NYC and I see people happily helping out total strangers everyday.
Yep.

I'm sure you get that a lot in some of the nicer neighborhoods like Harlem.  roflmao.gif
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 1:40 PM

Re: City or country? 



drewactual wrote:

again... the product of conservative practices allows for liberals to exist.  you guys can't live without conservatives, though conservatives can do very well without y'all.
That's a pretty absurd notion. What conservative practices allow for liberals to exist?

I would say the ability to live in cities is more due to advances in science, engineering and technology than whatever "conservative practices" you are referring to...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/2/2014 1:44 PM

Re: City or country? 


For this to fully correlate, you'd have to remove race from the equation. Inner cities tend to have the black population which always goes heavy for Dems and of course for Obama. So that skews things quite a bit. 

Outside of that I'd imagine there is still some correlation. I could get into a whole slew of psychological traits that lead to voting, and choice of living environment of course goes hand in hand with that. Had I chosen to stay in PolySci as a a profession, I believe studying these types of things would have been my field of choice as I believe there's a dearth of research performed in this arena. And I think I know why…. 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 1:58 PM

Re: City or country? 



KnoxKid wrote:
That's a pretty absurd notion. What conservative practices allow for liberals to exist?

I would say the ability to live in cities is more due to advances in science, engineering and technology than whatever "conservative practices" you are referring to...
the fact you read my post and retort with a demand is demonstrative of the 'wanting something for nothing' tell-tale of a liberal who demands products are freely available, scorns those who produce, yet doesn't want to get their little hands dirty, and usually demanded (consistent in this case) from someone who produces (in this particular, an observation) and while all the evidence I need to support my case was present in the post.. what 'i mean' by "conservative practices" is clearly evident unless you simply deny the truth, which may work in some instances of liberal intellectual dishonesty, but not this one.... you folks are a contradiction in its purest form.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 2:15 PM

Re: City or country? 


---------------------------------------------
--- KnoxKid wrote:
Liberal: We
Conservative: Me

---------------------------------------------

So you acknowledge that liberals have lost their individuality and become part of some mindless collective.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 2:33 PM

Re: City or country? 



Modern suburban life is the greatest way to live ever established by man.  All it takes is copious mounts of fuel and energy, and adherence to a book -- an instruction manual -- that has been delivered to us by our Creator (no, indy -- not the Kama Sutra.  Keep guessing).

Small town Americana is next; though it had certain drawbacks -- a predilection to conformity and small-mindedness being chief among them.  We are, after all, fallen creatures.

That same predilection to conformity -- as well as the intensified results of that Fall --  prevails in the urban environment, which is the worst of all forms of community life.  And because only those with psychological issues live there -- either because they're trapped there, which is both the source and cause of those issues; or because they're wealthy, and choose to live there (same qualifier applies); or because they're from some Eden like Knoxville, and think that a cesspool like NYC would be a more interesting and exciting place to live, due to either the hebephrenia of youth, or a deep-seated maladjustment, which is the same thing (and don't exclude each other).

That is why the cities are liberal -- liberalism, a mental disorder, finds its home there; and is continually reinforced in an echo chamber environment of mindless bumper sticker platitudes.

Wasn't it Jefferson who warned against the piling up of the populace in cities?  "Rats in a cage"?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/2/2014 2:44 PM

Re: City or country? 



volbrigade wrote:

Wasn't it Jefferson who warned against the piling up of the populace in cities?  "Rats in a cage"?

When I was a little boy and would ask "Mommy, why was that lady so rude?"  She would always answer "honey she can't help it. She's from up north where they're packed in like rats where it's hard to be nice to each other." 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/2/2014 2:48 PM

Re: City or country? 


That sounds lovely on paper, but I don't think it matches reality. As of a few years ago, 17% of Davidson County (with population density of 1,191/sq mile) were SNAP recipients, but the rate was 35% in Scott County with a population density of 41 ppl/sq mile. 

If you look on down down the list of counties and the % of population on food stamps, it doesn't look like there's much of a correlation either way, but if anything, in general, the counties with higher population density have a lower percentage of people on food stamps.

That's kinda hard to explain if people in lower population density areas are, in fact, more independent, self-reliant, and responsible than people who live in densely populated areas.

SNAP rates:

http://frac.org/wp-content/upl...y_formatted.pdf

Population density:

http://www.usa.com/rank/tennes...county-rank.htm









drewactual wrote: People who live outside of dense populated areas are generally more independent and responsible for their own lives, whereas the creature comforts of living in a place where you can purchase anything you need whenever you need it builds more reliance on others- to the point of demands..

[snip]
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 3  Next >