Learning stuff in the Election

United States
November 4, 2008 9:39pm CST
Well, this is the first presidential election I really feel a part of, I'm 16, so I can't vote, but I did learn something: I asked my mom (When they were showing a county map of virginia) why obama was winning that one, when there were more red counties then blue? Mom told me it was because there was a higher population in the counties Obama was winning, then the ones Mccain was winning....So a new question dawned on me, Should'nt that make a message of some sort? Why are the counties with big cities giving all the obama votes, and the ones without more of the big cities are giving to mccain, That should really say something...I'm just not positive what, Do yall have any Ideas of what it should be saying?
1 person likes this
9 responses
@spalladino (17926)
• United States
5 Nov 08
I'm originally from a large metropolitan area in Maryland but moved to a very small town in south central Florida about five years ago. One of the many differences that I've noticed is that this little county and town is resistant to change of any kind. There has been no business growth for years. Some businesses have tried to come in and their efforts have been blocked. The same politicians are re-elected again and again, no one ever manages to beat them. In contrast, cities and larger towns are in an almost constant state of change and growth so the people who live there are more receptive to the idea of change and those from small towns and rural counties are more comfortable with things staying as they are. At least that has been my observations.
3 people like this
• United States
5 Nov 08
That makes complete sense, But it brings the question, what kind of change do we want? what kind of change is good? I guess thats for the country to decide :P What kind of change do you think would be good in the nation (please choose at least one thing and feel free to be VERY detailed about it :P)
@stealthy (8188)
• United States
5 Nov 08
People in rural areas are more self reliant and less dependent on big government. The Democrats have always depended on their base being those who want more hand outs from big government and make promises to them but mainly work to keep them in the position of expecting and needing handouts. This strategy is much easier to do in higher population centers.
2 people like this
• United States
5 Nov 08
I do enjoy this Answer, it seems very brutally honest. I feel this also sounds very true
• Australia
5 Nov 08
No, it's because they are more conservative, which may well lead to a belief in self-reliance, but does not cause self-relaince. You have the chicken and the egg out of place. Lash
1 person likes this
• United States
5 Nov 08
I'm very sorry Lash, but I don't seem to understand, especially about it not being true self reliance? what do you mean?
• Australia
5 Nov 08
It's much the same anywhere, lilpixelle, that non-urban voters tend to be more politically conservative than urban voters. This harks back to earlier days when peasants (and I mean that descriptively, not insultingly) had to be conservative in their agricultural practices, and were also not exposed to many new ideas until the media became so much more accessible, as it is today. They very much tended to be, "What was good enough for great grandad is good enough for me", which has definite survival value in what has traditionally been a hard livelihood. That attitude has become ingrained in country folk even though they are much more modern now. Lash
1 person likes this
• United States
6 Nov 08
grandpa_lash this is the truth. I was born and raised in cold country- WI. There farmers don't want the goverment coming in and changing or making decisions for them. They are independent and do not want any help. Now that our coutry is turning from the self reliant farmers to government run you can see a change is voting and patterns. Wouldn't you say it is all about patterns?
@di1159 (1580)
• United States
5 Nov 08
I think the best part of this election is how it has aroused interest in the younger generation. You are only 16, however you make a very intelligent post and question. It is people like you who will be leading our country in the future, and I'm very glad you have taken such an interest in an otherwise "boring" topic. I think that big cities have a larger mixed population,(I live in Miami)where we have people from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds and from many different countries. They are open to new ideas and not as resistant to change as people in less populated areas. Stay informed, stay active, you are the voice of the future!
• United States
5 Nov 08
The shame is, there are few my age who still believe one person can make a difference, and fewer christains who still believe God can make miracles in everyday things such as politics. Personally I found a new question about the electoral votes, why do they exsist? Obama won with electoral votes but the popular vote is still beind counted and its still close to 50/50 shouldn't it be the popular vote overall? what happens if Mccain wins with the popular vote, and Obama wins with the Electoral vote? I mean they can't share the presidency... What happens?
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
6 Nov 08
The popular vote does not count, only the electoral vote counts. Al Gore got the popular vote and lost the electoral vote when he stood but he lost the election.
• Australia
6 Nov 08
The last figures I saw, which may have changed I suppose, gave Obama a 5% lead in the popular vote, which is a very large margin in modern electoral terms. Lash
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
5 Nov 08
The same is true in my country, the farmers tend to be conservative, not all of them but enough of them to make country electorates elect conservative parties. Not all country voters are conservative but their lifestyle tends to make them more conservative as risk is very risky. They often depend on Government support, tax advantages and protection from competing imports so they want a party which will protect their interests and they see conservatives like this as they tend to be against change. Urban areas on the other hand tend to be full of workers who are more likely to want tax breaks and so they tend to vote for parties that offer bigger tax cuts to the low and middle income earners.
• United States
5 Nov 08
But the farmers here are voting mccain, meaning they want lower taxes, but lower health care and stuff too, thats less support from the government isnt it? Instead of obama who wants more socialized health care and education? if they wanted more government support wouldnt they go obama?
1 person likes this
@sharra1 (6344)
• Australia
6 Nov 08
You would think so but they do not. In Australia we have a party that is called the National Party and used to be called the Country Party. It is conservative but represents rural people. This party joins with the other conservative party here to make a conservative coalition. Most of our country areas vote for this party because it looks after their interests specifically and they feel that the other 2 parties tend to focus on city people. In America your farmers appear to be different but in both countries they vote conservative. Our conservative party still give tax breaks to farmers etc. because if they did not then they would never get elected. One of the benefits of having more than 2 parties. In Australia we have a conservative party called the Liberal Party which represents the well off, a slightly left wing Labor Party which traditionally represents the workers and the conservative National Party which traditionally represents the farmers. Neither conservative party ever gets enough votes to gain government on their own so they for a coalition to rule but they are not as right wing as the Liberals (misleading name)and often disagree with them.
@carolscash (9501)
• United States
6 Nov 08
I believe that the reason that Obama took more of the highly populated places was because there are more of a variety of people in those areas and they are more open to the idea of a new person to run the country. The rural areas picked McCain becuase he offered the style of politics that we seem to be used to in this country. We need the change that Obama is offering!
@kdhartford (1152)
• United States
6 Nov 08
Well there are different values in the country than the city. It is smart for a politician to focus on large population areas. I think though that this stratification does say something about America. Some of the red counties went 90 to 100% for McCain, I think that there are a large group of people that might feel disenfrancised. My hope is that there will be Republicans with the political will to stand up to the Democrats when needed...to protect those in the small towns.
@lingli_78 (12846)
• Australia
5 Nov 08
i'm not really into politics and i don't really like politics... i had voted twice in the past back in my home country and to be honest with you, i don't really know much about the candidate that i am voting for... i just vote out of obligations and because my parents asked me to vote as well... i know i am bad... but i just not interested... take care and have a nice day...
@kenzie45230 (3561)
• United States
5 Nov 08
It was the same all over. The big cities were for Obama, the more rural areas for McCain. Part of that is because farmers are small business people who realized that Obama was going to be raising their taxes. It's also because rural and suburban people tend to be more conservative. There was not one person on our street - and very few in our township - for Obama. But in the inner city? You betcha.