Golis: The great gap between urban and rural voters

After a family wedding, we drove the back roads of New York and Pennsylvania, country roads littered with Trump/Vance signs. It's a truism of current politics that rural areas vote Republican and urban areas vote Democrat.

Consider this: In the 2020 presidential election, Oklahoma City was the largest city won by Republican Donald Trump. It is the 25th largest city in the country. Republicans control Texas, but Democrats won in Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio.

The same thing happened to us while driving on the back roads of California. You know you've left the Bay Area when you see the semi-truck sitting alone in a field with “TRUMP” written on the side in big letters.

California is one of the bluest of the blue states. In 2020, Democrat Joe Biden beat Republican Trump by more than 5 million votes in California alone. Nevertheless, Trump won 23 rural counties, often by large margins.

This should not surprise us. Voters who live in rural areas tend to be older and white – both characteristics of Republican voters. They are also often disillusioned with the hustle and bustle of modern life and oppose the regulations that govern the economic engines of rural life – agriculture, mining, forestry.

All over the San Joaquin Valley, you see signs blaming Democrats for a “water crisis,” meaning they oppose regulations that divert water imports to protect fish populations.

These places are also part of California, but they should not be confused with Los Angeles or San Francisco, Santa Rosa or Healdsburg.

Unless something unforeseen happens, Trump will win most of these rural counties, underscoring the political divide we see in many parts of the world.

Richard Florida, a professor at the University of Toronto's School of Cities, writes for Bloomberg News: “Our analysis of the 2020 metropolitan elections shows that the nation is deeply divided geographically: denser, wealthier, more educated and more knowledge-based metropolises are joining the Democrats, while less privileged, less educated and more working-class metropolises remain Republican strongholds.”

Regardless of the views of people living in rural areas, New York and California are likely to choose Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump in November, but Pennsylvania is still in play and could very well decide the outcome of the election.

So when you hear about the battle for suburban voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, it says something about where the game will be won or lost. Voters in the suburbs – areas that are neither urban nor rural – will be a major focus of both campaigns.

These divisions reveal forces that threaten to make the country ungovernable. The Washington Post reported last week that it is difficult to recruit men and women for military service “at a time when Americans' faith in their country is crumbling.” The New York Times interviewed people who said they were ready to leave the country.

Democrats believe that counties with fewer people are more likely to vote for the party that favors additional government initiatives. The most well-known book on this apparent contradiction asks the question, “What's Wrong with Kansas?” (by Thomas Frank).

It turns out that voters in these rural counties don't always vote according to their wallets. Some voters are motivated by issues that define what we call the culture wars — abortion, same-sex marriage, school prayer, book bans.

How divided are we? The New York Times reported last week: “In the age of modern opinion polls, there has never been an election in which the latest polls showed a race as close as today.”

Times pollster Nate Cohen says: “The polls show Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump within two percentage points of each other in the seven key swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada. To win, Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris would have to win at least three of the seven states, and neither candidate can claim a significant lead in that many states.”

The fact that people who have less prefer Trump could also be an indication of their disappointment with the Democrats, who always promise them a better life without keeping those promises. There is no doubt that Trump has succeeded in tapping into the frustrations associated with globalization and the loss of working-class prosperity. He speaks the language of victimhood and defiance.

Trump may not be able to help them much – he did that during his first term as president – but he knows how to exploit their resentment. People in these rural areas feel abandoned and sense the indifference and condescension of city dwellers.

They say Democrats are determined to restore their reputation with rural and blue-collar voters. Their newfound recognition speaks to the critical role that blue-collar states – Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada – will play in determining the outcome of the presidential election in November.

In California, some of these rural counties want to leave the state, form a new Jefferson State, or merge with eastern Oregon to become part of Idaho. Why low-income counties believe they're better off on their own remains difficult to understand, but it will be worth it, at least until the moment the bills come due.

Pete Golis is a columnist for The Press Democrat. Email him at [email protected].

You can send letters to the editor to the following address: [email protected].