What a dumb question.What´s separates the two is those who pay and those who receive.It´s always been like that and what most elections are really about.Other issues are manufactured.

The left used to be sneaky about their vote buying schemes but not anymore under Obama. Obama wants it to get out he´s spending big on the grifter crowd.Obama has a huge network where he disperses what he´s doing to every liberal subgroup.

It´s obvious, but you can´t state it without being labeled a racist.

Agree with #1.

I beleieve poster #1 missed the point in the article. The author takes your point into account but really goes on to explain the "well off" liberal voting trend in the cities. I grew up in NY as a liberal and have many friends and family still there. It is amazing to watch how they respond to Sandy. They are less capable to self sustain and support themselves than the middle of the country (rural) areas are when struck by disaster. The author speaks to that and how it translates into votes.

But how will we change it? How does one drive thru a Trenton, NJ, East St. Louis, Compton and observe the residents-black white yellow or brown- who strut the stage as if they were giants, as opposed to %110 totally dependent children?
"No, sirs, you are not worthy of "Respeck" simply because you demand it, EARN IT!"
IMHO, we have lost the cities. Urban redidents have bought into the entitlement attitude so completely that the entire populations; multiple generations, are beyond repair.

Simple Black vs. White

The article is well worth a read. It isn´t about black or white or dependency on the government. It´s about being disconnected from the realities of life in the urban cocoon. Someone else struggles to grow the food and makes the goods that ´magically´ appear at your trendy little shops. It´s about the state of perpetual adolescence that liberals live in.

O was the pimp with the bankroll.

Too many people being allowed to vote that have no business anywhere near a voting booth.

Dittos to above posters!

Must read!

It´s easier to finagle the voting machines in urban areas.

Too bad we do not have an electoral college in each state, based on each county.

If each county had 1 vote, depending on how that county voted, and total all the county votes to see who got the electoral vote of that State, democrats would never win another Presidential election.

In my neighborhood, we don´t throw gum onto the sidewalk. We sweep the sidewalks in front of our houses. In my neighborhood, we don´t toss fast food and candy wrappers on the ground when the closest trash can is more than ten feet away. We pick up trash and cigarette butts thrown out by slobs who don´t live here. That´s the difference. We do it.

Check out any urban neighborhood. If it doesn´t belong to you, it ain´t your problem. It´s the government´s job to maintain every thing and every problem in everybody´s life.

Godly vs God-less

Good vs Evil

Believers vs Deniers

Christians vs Humanists, Atheists, Black Theologists, Islamists, LGBTists, etc.

Followers of Jesus vs Followers of the Devil himself (whether beknownst or un-)

Most people, especially those who occupy and produce "salons", refuse to accept the reality put forth by #6. I work in an office with two military veterans from PR, and they both fly into a fit of rage if you defend conservatism or point out their lies as they openly disparage white Americans. White Americans have become too damned cowardly and weak to save themselves. I´m certain that most people here will cringe (or maybe even send an email to Lucianne asking for my removal) because of these words, but so be it. As for the folks in the aforementioned office, I´m certain that it gets under their skin that as they attempt to bully, shout, and intimidate, I calmly look them straight in the eyes and challenge their child-like, over-emotional, third-world peasant inability to communicate as an American patriot, something that many failed ex-military types wear on their sleeve in order to pretend that their opinion has more merit. America isn´t dying, it´s already dead and gone. Thank you, ´60´s generation.

Re: #5

See the last line of the article. The awakening may be sooner than later.

The sense of entitlement in urban areas is not limited to blacks. As noted by others, whites have the same overblown sense of self worth, and thus an overblown sense of entitlement.
I attended a labor law conference at the law school of the u. of kentucky, in 1977. One of the presenters was a lawyer from NYC, and he was spitting mad that the federal government was charging nyc interest on the loan given to them. (You may remember that NYC had spent itself into near bankruptcy, and demanded federal money to cover its profligate spending habits.)He said that it was insulting to impose interest payments on a loan.
I asked him if he thought NYC would have been better off had the feds not given the loan. He sputtered, but didn´t answer.

An article posted here a day or two ago put it very simply without all the sociological water muddying. Makers vs. takers. There are now more takers.
A great example is the recent storm (and lots of earlier ones). Where I live, people got out their kerosene lanterns, camp stoves, battery radios and propane heaters. Those who had generators used them. They ate from their emergency food stores when necessary. When the aid people did show up, there were not many people who needed help. Family, neighbors or church had already stepped in. Power crews from private companies came in and worked 16 hour shifts and 7 day weeks to get things fixed. Nobody inquired about union membership.
Contrast that with the cities, where everyone gets all upset that the gubbermint is not moving fast enough to save them. They sit in the dark and the cold, and black market the aid that is given them. Takers all. No doubt Obama voters also.

Peoples in rural areas want to do for themselves, with minimal, to no Government interference. Peeps in urban areas want the Government to take care of them. The proof is in the voting. Urban areas always go blue for liberal, nanny-state politicians.

Hendrickson´s reasons are far to timidly presented. There are a multitude of reasons for the sharp drop-off in national unity. Many of those reasons have been simmering for years. The city-centric attitude is one of those long-lived opinions and was presented years ago in this article: http://www urbanarchipelago com/ (add dots where needed).

IMO it is a shame that the 53%-ers really have no clue about how to produce anything. In that regard they are extremely vulnerable. They probably know it which explains the arrogance. It is a compensating behaviour.

Fortunately for Boston, after Curley left office, John Collins was elected mayor. He, with the help of Boston´s business leaders, known as The Vault, and Catholic Archbishop Cushing, brought the city back from its decline in the 1950s and 60s. Collins was honest, smart and motivated.
By the 1970s, college grads decided to stay in the city, renovate Back Bay brownstones, and the Boston renaisance was underway. Boston´s non partisan politics has helped too.
The Curley Effect makes sense; but in Boston, it is dead.

Posters #4 and #5 make good points. Most of my older relatives were farmers and ranchers & I appreciate their struggles because I have seen & heard about them first-hand. My grandmother was living in the big city far from the farm she grew up on & close-knit family when she found herself alone, divorced & raising small children. Knowing that she would be at work all day & taking side jobs, she wisely dispersed the kids to the family´s farms every summer. She was afraid of the city influence of unsupervised children & wanted to her kids to apprecciate close family life & understand the old-fashioned, simple values of rural living.

It all gets down to the taker vs. maker issue.

Cut them off and soon they will realize there is NO free Lunch!

Perhaps it´s time for some new terminology: Plantation Cities. If that is too racially-freighted, then Leech Farms. King Hussein operates that largest leech farm in the world.

I think the most important thing about conservatism that attracts people is its protection of individual liberty.

Urbanites know they must give up some individual liberty in order to live peaceably with large numbers of people.

Thus, they will tolerate even further erosion of their individual freedoms, making them both more gullable and easier to control. For example, how many Iowa farmers would put up with Mayor Bloomberg´s food restrictions?

And conversely, urbanites have no real idea of the importance of certain things to Flyover country....things like the damage done by leaving a farm gate open or making an unexpected low noise around livestock.

Sorry...incomplete proofreading...

....unexpected LOUD noise....

The aurhor did not address Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth. There is something in Texas that innoculates even the city dwellers.

I live in a suburb of Houston. Our county is so conservative we elected Tom Delay as our representative (and would like him back).

Those who think government should provide or fund all goods and services necessary for modern life vs those who don´t want government intrusion into their life with its hand in their wallet. By the way, how is big government working out for those people in Rockaway and Staten Island NY and the cities along the Jersey shore?

I´ve said the big division is urban-rural for years. If you live in a city with millions of people, you are dependent upon government services for everything, even if you work. These people willingly sacrifice liberty for a semblance of security and then they have to lie to themselves to justify their compromise. Talk to anyone from NYC and listen to them tell you how it is the only place in the world worth living. Then ask about the square footage and number of cockroaches. The urbanization of the country will continue, and so will the socialization.

An interesting article, but the author elided one point: Cities, for the past fifty years, have been places for the rich, the poor, and the young. Once middle-income families discovered that you could get a lot more bang for your buck in the suburbs, there was no reason for them to live in the cities. You can´t raise a family in a studio apartment, you certainly don´t want to live in a rat-infested slum, and you can´t afford 10 grand a month for a decent place.

When we were growing up after WWII, most Ameican cities were populated with lots of families who had moved there from the country and their personal industriousness, integrity and values reflected that rural independence. The media and even Hollywood encouraged all those attributes of the better sides of our human nature. We knew right from wrong. The city streets were safe to walk back then. Schools actually educated & inspired. But after the ´60s radicals and the me me me generation disrupted America´s domestic tranquility, that all began to change.

Today too many urban areas seem to have too much in common with yesterday´s ´top down´ plantations. Some living in such inner city places have even lost touch with their own Constitutional freedoms, self respect and the Golden Rule.

The dem activists who once railed against, ´boring´ ticky-tacky,´ conformity in their radical student days, are now tenured and are demanding that everyone else conform to their own, ´ticky-tacy,´ one-size-fits-all statist uniformity. (-Eat THIS! Don´t eat THAT! Take a number & wait, ´units!´ Etc.)

...Why regress back to an 1850´s, ´city state,´ plantation-esque mentality when Americans have given their all to protect and defend equality´s Constitutional principles of Life, Liberty and Justice for EACH individual when U.S.A. Constitutional principles have already proved themselves successful?

Great point 31~ and why couldn´t HUD do some urban development of moderately priced apartments for TAXPAYERS who aren´t rich?