• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Repubs are a regional/southern party

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
But a University of Minnesota study found that when the 113th Congress convenes, a whopping 29.4% (59 of 201) of Democrats in the House will hail from California (38 members) and New York (21 members).

The study analyzed 83 general election cycles dating back to 1850 and discovered the “Democratic Party now comprises a larger percentage of Californians and New Yorkers in the U.S. House than at any point since California joined the Union.”

According to the study, “even though California and New York are two of three most populous states in the country,” the number of representatives from both states has “remained flat over the last 50 years.”

However, during this 50-year period, the percentage of Democrats elected to the House from California and New York “has increased by more than two-thirds: from 17.4 percent in 1962 to 29.4 percent in January 2013.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/20/Two-State-Party-Nearly-30-of-House-Democrats-Hail-From-CA-and-NY
 

Steve

Well-known member
it is essentially a re-redistricting trick.. the state of New York for example is a few extremely large cities.. and the rest is rural.. very rural in fact..

and very conservative.. to the point it would surprise the average person who has never traveled through the state.

but those in rural areas have slowly seen what little voice they had shut down by re-redistricting.

moderate (liberal) republicans try to protect their turf, while democrats take the state a few towns at a time..

as the cities lose actual population, they claim more rural areas.. who end up with little clout.. and no representation.



Remember Dede Scozzafava? In 2009, the New York Republican Party tried to foist her on the people of New York. She was a liberal Republican who, with the backing of unions, almost got elected until conservatives stood up and said no. She wound up dropping out and endorsing the Democrat.

The same New York GOP that gave us her and spectacularly saw the next several of its preferred congressional picks go down in flames, is now ready to redistrict one of the most conservative women in Congress out of Congress because, well, she is willing to stand up to her own party on spending.

the New York Republican Party has a habit of being tone deaf when it comes to its political preferences. It seems nothing has changed.

The New York Senate Republicans, however, don’t like that she is willing to vote against pork for New York, so they’ve redistricted her into a hostile district.

New York Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, ranked by the Club for Growth as the most conservative woman in the House, may have a difficult road to re-election this fall as a result of a redistricting — not because Democrats are trying to get rid of her, but because her own party is.

The redistricting map submitted by the New York Republican state Senate would all but ensure that Buerkle doesn’t win reelection in New York’s 25th District, which she currently represents. The district drawn by the Democratic State Assembly would offer her no better chance.

when the bar is moved, conservatives have a higher bar, fighting against moderates in their own party who just want to keep the status quo.. to the point they will "line out' any threat to their leadership...

a fact that is painfully obvious in the North East..




http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/NY

a look at the results will show many of the counties were close.. with Romney wining most of the rural counties taking as much as 63.7% of the rural vote. and being competitive in most of the others.. .. but compared to Obama's 84% of New York City metropolitan area.. he had no chance of winning the state..

the conservative representatives face the same battle in re-redistricting
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
World population hits 7 billion
By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY

Updated 10/31/2011 3:57 PM

By Rajesh Kumar Singh, AP

Today, you are one of 7 billion people on Earth.
----------

However many more people are added in the next century, more will live in cities. Even in developing nations, a growing share of the population lives in urbanized areas, a shift that is leading to denser living and putting more pressure to reduce energy use and build new infrastructure .

Only 28.8% of the world's population lived in urban areas in 1950. Today, just over 50% do, and the United Nations projects that almost 69% will by 2050, when the population is expected to reach 9.3 billion. The number of people who live in cities by then will almost equal today's world population.

I heard this 50 % fact on a TV documentary tonight about the changing demographics of the country and the world....My curiosity found this article... One of the major changes of the world/country since 1950...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Percentage of rural Americans hits all time low

Submitted by Rocky Barker on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:02pm, updated on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 5:05pm



The U.S. Census confirms what most rural Americans already know.
It reported its 2010 Census showed the nation’s rural population stands at 16 percent of the country, the lowest in history. Gone are the days when the United States could see itself as an agrarian nation where the simple values of rural life lay the foundation for our democracy.

This was the world that Thomas Jefferson presided. In his United States farmers were clearly the nation’s most valuable citizens and economically, as well as philosophically, rural America could hold its own.

That has been changing for nearly 200 years as the Industrial Revolution drove people to the cities. Rural communities held their own well into the 20th Century.

But across the Great Plains and in much of the West, the changing economics of agriculture led to a steady drop in rural areas that were not recreation destinations. Kids left and businesses closed.
Without workers these communities, could not attract new businesses. Small businesses had a hard time holding on as big box stories in nearby large towns cut into their customer base.

As we are caught in the middle of a debate over how to cut the deficit one thing appears clear. We will continue to reduce the amount of federal money that goes to rural areas.

Fewer people means that funds for housing, transportation, education and medical services, which are distributed with formulas tied to population, will drop for rural communities. Add expected cuts in farm programs and the economic power of rural communities from Kansas to Oregon will drop.
Another trend that few people discuss also contributes to the disintegration of rural communities in states like Idaho that have large swaths of public land. The federal spending for natural resource and environmental programs has dropped dramatically from the 1970s to today.


When Cecil Andrus was Interior Secretary, agencies ranging from the Bureau of Reclamation, the Forest Service to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service represented nearly 2.5 percent of the federal budget.
Beginning next year, after the effects of the stimulus spending are done, the trend will continue downward to less than 1 percent and by 2015 down to nearly .8 percent. Those who benefit from these programs, ranging from the timber industry to environmental groups want the public to understand that the big growth in government didn’t come from them.
So Idaho has been one of the fastest growing states in the union the last two decades but the rural gap widens. People have moved to the metropolitan areas ranging from the Treasure Valley to the Coeur d’Alene area and the corridor from Rexburg toward Pocatello.

Agrarianism, the idea that rural life is superior to urban life, run deep in America. My own roots, like many urban residents, reach back to a farm. I can relate to those who see positive traits in the rural lifestyle, inherently closer to nature than the traditional urban life.
How those values survive these population trends is uncertain.

Read more here: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2011/07/28/rockybarker/the_rural_population_america_hits_record_low#storylink=cpy

Another interesting article...Only 16% of the US population now considered Rural.... :shock:
 
Top