Golis: The Great Divide Between Urban and Rural Voters

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

Consider this: In the 2020 presidential election, the largest city Republican Donald Trump won was Oklahoma City, which happens to be the 25th largest city in the country. Republicans hold control of Texas, but Democrats won Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio.

We encountered the same thing driving the back roads of California. You know you’ve left the Bay Area when you see the tractor-trailer alone in a field. On the side, in big letters, it says “TRUMP.”

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

We shouldn’t be surprised. Rural voters tend to be older and white, both hallmarks of Republican voters. They also tend to be disillusioned with the rush of modern life and resent the regulations that govern the economic engines of rural life: farming, mining, logging.

Signs all over the San Joaquin Valley blame Democrats for a “water crisis.” What they mean is they disagree with regulations that divert imported water to protect fish populations.

These places are also part of California, but you wouldn’t quickly confuse them with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Rosa or Healdsburg.

If nothing happens, Trump will win most of these rural districts. This is evidence of the political divisions 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 subway elections shows a country deeply divided by geography, with denser, wealthier, better-educated, more knowledge-based subways lining up for the Democrats, while less privileged, less educated, more working-class subways remain Republican strongholds.”

Despite the opinions of people living in rural areas, New York and California are likely to vote for Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump in November. Pennsylvania, however, is still in play and could determine the outcome of the election.

So when you hear about the battle for suburban voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, it’s a matter of where the contest is going to be won or lost. Voters in suburban districts — that is, areas that are neither urban nor rural — are going to be a major focus of both campaigns.

This division reveals 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 districts with less fortunate people should want to vote for the party that favors additional government initiatives. The best-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 constituencies don’t always use their wallets. Some voters are motivated by issues that define what we call the culture wars: abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, book bans.

How divided are we? The New York Times reported last week: “In the era of modern polling, there has never been an election in which the final polls showed the race as close as they do now.”

This is the Times’ polling expert, Nate Cohen: “The polls show Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump within two points of each other in the seven key swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Nevada. To win, Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris would need to win at least three of the seven states, and neither candidate can claim a meaningful advantage in that many states.”

The fact that people who have less prefer Trump may also reflect their disillusionment with Democrats, who always promise them a better life and never deliver. There is no doubt that Trump has succeeded in tapping into the frustrations that come with globalization and the loss of wealth for working-class people. He speaks the language of victimization and resistance.

Trump may not be helping them much — he didn’t in his first term — but he knows how to play on their resentments. People in these rural areas feel abandoned, and they can sense the indifference and condescension of people in the big city.

Judging by what they say, Democrats are determined to restore their standing among rural and working-class voters. Their newfound recognition speaks volumes about the critical role that working-class states — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada — will play in determining the outcome of the November presidential election.

In California, some of these rural districts want to leave the state behind, creating a new state called Jefferson or joining eastern Oregon to become part of Idaho. Why low-income districts think they would be better off on their own remains difficult to understand, but there will be psychic rewards, at least until 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 [email protected].