Hacker News Reader

Comment by sverige | Hacker News Reader

>> That seems like a stark contrast from the rhetoric we hear from many national Democratic leaders who seemingly want to alter our way of life. (Emphasis added)

That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives like you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to another city. The democrats have little hope of regaining any majorities in the 3,084 counties where Trump won unless they make major changes to their policies that damage the economies in many of those counties and their strategy of trying to shame them into changing their behavior (including calling them "deplorable" and "irredeemable").

View on HN

> That's the problem right there. It's easy to imagine that everyone lives like you when you are in a city that rarely leave, unless it is to fly to another city

I hope you can see the irony in rural areas being upset that "those city people don't understand us" when they also make little attempt to understand the political motivations of urban voters. They also seem to believe that the world should keep subsidizing their jobs even when there is a long term trend of urbanization etc.

Personally I think rural and urban areas need each other but we need more compromise - why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up? Do we want to go back to rural poverty being the norm? My wifes grandparents grew up in that and it was a hard life. Those people need affordable healthcare and benefit from being able to send their kids off to good universities etc.

Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America.

> why are urban areas subsidizing infrastructure spending in rural areas and the farm bill only to get kicked in the teeth when issues associated with urban areas come up?

I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks.

> Rural America doesn't have a monopoly on the "real" America - they are just as out of touch with urban America.

That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers. When the news covers Rural America it is pretty bad reporting unless the reporter is actually local[1]. The whole debacle of the pipeline in Standing Rock pretty much proved the point. I've seen coverage of celebrities and pieces from major publications that get much of the history wrong[2].

1) which makes me wonder about reports coming from the rest of the world

2) the whole "rich people in Bismarck" line is beyond insulting and the amount of back story on all the prep for the pipeline is tragically poor.

> I'm curious what Urban American has gotten "kicked in the teeth" by? Mainly, the $ figures are from military, power, and agriculture which Urban American doesn't want in their backyard. Pigs and turkeys don't smell so good, and wind farms are noisy, unsightly, and a bit dangerous. Counting military and power spending is pretty poor form. Transportation happens because the low cost raw materials come from the rural areas. No roads, no food for urban folks

A local example for my State would be spending on public transportation vs bridges. Elected officials from rural areas are routinely outraged about "wasteful" spending on buses/trains to relieve congestion but then complain that not enough is spent on rural bridges and highways. You are right, we do need roads to bring food in (it's symbiotic too by the way -if urban areas don't buy then rural areas are back to subsistence farming and poverty) but we could do that without four lane highways and overpasses. Personally I amok spending tax revenue on infrastructure but that should include public transportation in urban areas if appropriate.

> That's not really true. Rural America is quite aware of the issues Urban America face because that's all the news really covers

Seeing coverage is not the same as understanding. Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field. The same could be said about rural issues.

To be clear, Im not saying urban America understands rural America. I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.

I would hardly call public transportation vs bridges a kick in the teeth. Bridges are becoming a huge issue for everyone. Just look at what happened in urban MN when the 35W bridge went because we were not spending the money on maintenance.

> Ask someone in a rural area how to solve inner-city poverty and they will give you a different answer than someone who works in the field.

I'm not sure urban folks know how to solve it either.

> I'm just sick of seeing this narrative of "Trump won because liberal elites don't understand rural America". It's way too simplistic.

It is simplistic, but you cannot have a candidate show up and give speeches about putting all the people in a region out of work without a lifeline. Not everything in life is complicated. If someone showed up in SV and said "I don't like this technology and we will be shutting it all down", I would imagine that person is going to get no votes.

I'm pretty sure Rubio (or most of the R candidates) would have won, and it would have been on the same basis. The fact that the Republicans won with a candidate with the highest negatives is pretty hard to believe.

As a side note, I starting to think polling companies should look at donor lists to get some baseline on candidates. I'm thinking that's the next wave of polling analysis.

35W is a great example (I live in the Twin Cities and was only a mile or two from the bridge when it collapsed). Our Republican Governor at the time (Pawlenty) had aspirations for Washington so signed a "No New Taxes" pledge primarily to appease rural Minnesotans (he also promised to "reprioritize" spending to benefit rural areas). It was a great example of how bridges that were known to urgently need repairs were neglected. After Dayton (take a guess which party) was elected the State raised taxes and has rebuilt many bridges.

The Twin Cities also has some other good examples - Republicans actively fight against metro transit projects (both light rail lines, the proposed SW Light Rail, BRT lines in place of LRT for at least 3 other corridors, and even regular city buses) but proudly tell their rural/exurban constituents about "successes" like replacing the Stillwater lift bridge (an old 2 lane bridge) with a massive four lane bridge very similar to the I-90 bridge just south of the area. How do you justify $500M for a bridge that benefits ~ 10,000 rural commuters/rural industry but ignore the daily congestion that tens of thousands of commuters face (coming in from Woodbury, Oakdale, Lake Elmo, Hudson etc). The gateway corridor had a similar price tag to the Stillwater bridge but became a partisan issue.

It doesn't have to be an either or situation - we could fund both but it gets turned into a partisan issue by Republicans in the name of "wasteful spending by urban liberals". Democrats don't oppose rural bridges or highways but many Republicans actively oppose public transport on principle.

I was living in Twin City at the time also, and the loss of the T-Mobile tower made finding loved ones a bit difficult.

Your history of the metro light rail is a bit off. The rail was pushed by Gov. Jesse Ventura (who the Republicans and Democrats would surely not claim). It was opposed by Pawlenty, but he relented on a smaller line to get the federal money. The state government under Pawlenty funded in via a bonding bill for $37.5 million. That didn't pay for it though. It took almost $100 million from the state and money from various other regional players with over $150 more million from the feds. It has not met its promised ridership goals, and it will never relieve congestion.

All of this money could have gone to fixing the roads instead of funding a train that kills people because of a bad route in Minneapolis that once was a turn. Never mind the whole problem with the U. Check the stats on transportation to see how important those bridges are to business as commuter numbers are not the whole issue. Those daily congestion issues can be blamed on not wanting to expand the highways. The long proposed 294 and 894 would have done more than then the light rail.

I was referring to the new LRT corridors.The Hiawatha line was built before I came to MN. You are absolutely correct that metro funding via Met Council made up much of the cost.

The most recent LRT line hit its ridership goals within one year (2014 instead of 2030 - https://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/09/19/green-line-ridershi...). The Hiawatha line is also doing well - exceeding 2020 goals in 2016. People die on 94/694/494 all the time as well unfortunately.

I'm not familiar with 294 and 894, will definitely read up on them. Thanks for the debate/information!

> I was referring to the new LRT corridors. The Hiawatha line was built before I came to MN. You are absolutely correct that metro funding via Met Council made up much of the cost.

I left in 2008 but still visit. All my relatives and friends move to MN after I moved back to ND. I try not to take that personally :). Someone needs to seriously fix the north west metro.

I think the working name for 294/894 switched a couple of time so it might be "extended loop" or some bypass name. It was supposed to surround the larger metro area since 494/694 is basically an interior road.

I'm glad someone is using it, but I do believe the federal application had a different ridership goal / promise. I just wish they had elevated it.

Thanks for staying civil, its been a rough couple of months here.

It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of city folks trying to change the way rural folks live.

In what ways?

I've heard this rhetoric for a while - that this election was a clash between "city folks" and "rural folks", with the implication being that the former conform to one stereotype and the latter another. I suspect that it might have some truth to it, but it's presented as an attempt at populist mythmaking and propaganda.

But I have yet to understand what values "rural folks" exclusively hold that "city folks" don't, and vice versa.

It's the key problem indeed. It is not the party leadership who wants to alter your way of life. It's the life that is changing. Automation, solar, energy storage and an increasing tension between finite resources and exponential growth all are altering their way of life. It is ok to want to stick to way things have worked in the past but it is not ok to ignore the world as it changes around you. In twenty years, the world as they know it will be gone. The longer that simple fact is ignored the harder the fall becomes once reality can no longer ignored.

I couldn't believe it when HRC made that 'deplorables' comment. Although (very) appropriate for some of Trump's supporters, it was a great way to alienate people and to guarantee they wouldnt vote for her. A real WTF moment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com