HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Economy & Education » Economy (Group) » Democrats and Republicans...

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:15 PM

Democrats and Republicans Aren't Just Divided. They Live in Different Worlds.

A major report by the WSJ, yes, "Murdoch evil empire"

Will try to post all the graphs. Perhaps should be in GD, but will start here.

The two parties represent radically different slices of the American economy.

America’s political polarization is almost complete. Its two main political parties increasingly represent two different economies. And they barely overlap.

Democrats can be found in educated cities and suburbs where professional jobs are plentiful. Republicans live in working-class and rural communities, home to agriculture and low-skill manufacturing.

Let’s look at GDP, or the value of goods and services produced, to understand how the two parties are divided. These days, Democratic House districts are doing substantially better: Two-thirds of the nation’s GDP comes from those areas, with Republican districts making up the rest.

Share of real GDP, by congressional district in 2018



(Cannot transfer the label, the blue is 63.6%, the red - 36.4%)


You can see the change most dramatically by looking at House districts ranked by their contribution to GDP. A decade ago, Democrats represented House districts with both the most and least economic output.

Today, the picture is very different. Democrats are even more dominant among high-producing districts, while Republicans now represent more of those with the least economic activity.

The solid line is 2008, the dots are 2018

Also, at the bottom, the Paycheck Picture: Household income tells a similar story. A decade ago, median household income was about the same for each party. Since then, it has jumped nearly 17% in Democratic districts while falling 3% in Republican ones.



What is Behind the Splits, the report asks:

(In case it is hard to read the text)


Blue Industries

Democrats represent districts with the biggest clusters of professional jobs. That includes tech hubs around Silicon Valley and Boston. Nearly three quarters of jobs in digital or professional industries are in Democratic districts.


Red Industries

Republican districts, by contrast, hold growing shares of the nation’s agriculture, mining and low-skill manufacturing jobs, many of which do not require a college degree, have lower pay and are more exposed to overseas competition.





Look at the data another way—these two charts show where industries cluster—and the pattern becomes even clearer.

Low-skill manufacturing has a strong presence in Republican districts, particularly in more rural communities scattered across the country, from Arizona to Wisconsin.

Again, solid line 2008, dots 2018





Also at the bottom of the graph:


Location, Location, Location

The two parties represent different parts of the economy, in large part because they represent different kinds of places.

Once, the parties were geographically intertwined. But in 2010, the ‘tea party’ election wiped out Democrats in rural and working-class districts across the Midwest and Southeast. The 2018 midterms ousted Republicans from many suburbs.


The Education Divide

People with college degrees are more concentrated in Democratic districts than in Republican districts.



Why does this matter?

“When folks have less in common with one another, it’s hard to expect that they’re going to see the problem the same way,” said Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, “let alone recognize that a problem exists.”


https://www.wsj.com/graphics/red-economy-blue-economy (paid subscription)


19 replies, 6854 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democrats and Republicans Aren't Just Divided. They Live in Different Worlds. (Original post)
question everything Sep 2019 OP
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #1
question everything Sep 2019 #4
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #6
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #18
question everything Sep 2019 #16
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #17
snowybirdie Sep 2019 #2
question everything Sep 2019 #5
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #9
question everything Sep 2019 #13
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #15
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #10
snowybirdie Sep 2019 #11
kurtcagle Sep 2019 #12
KPN Sep 2019 #3
CrispyQ Sep 2019 #7
sharedvalues Sep 2019 #8
Midnight Writer Sep 2019 #14
Farmer-Rick Sep 2019 #19

Response to question everything (Original post)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:20 PM

1. WSJ doesn't mention rightwing media? Murdoch press, typical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:33 PM

4. Why not look at the what is there instead of what is not?

It is about the economy. Was valid when Clinton ran and now.

Wouldn't it be nice if many here started judging posts and reports by their contents and not kill the messenger?

Yes, I know, keep dreaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:37 PM

6. Because that is how Murdoch hoodwinks us.

“Just pay attention to the words!”

Bull sh*t.

Every propaganda publication must have some truth or readers leave. And the choice of what they cover is ITSELF a propaganda method.

WSJ and the Murdoch ownership are some of the biggest factors that Trump is in office. They subtly twisted their choice of coverage in 2016 to get Trump elected.

No patriotic American reads WSJ. Period. If you do, you’re being suckered by Murdoch.

Cancel WSJ. Subscribe to the FT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 08:08 PM

18. The messenger is the message.

"The medium is the message"

This is politics -- and media -- in 2019.

It might not have been this way in 1972. But it is today.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sharedvalues (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 07:32 PM

16. BTW, did you actually bother to read this, to realize that it praises Democrats?

Confirming what we have been saying that blue states are net givers while red ones are net receivers?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 08:07 PM

17. Yes. It omits the fact that red states are brainwashed by Fox- by Murdoch

Which is one of the most critical relevant points about red areas today

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:20 PM

2. Generalization usually is flawed logic

Very rich Republicans in many places and dirt poor Democrats in others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowybirdie (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:35 PM

5. Generalization? With such a meticulous collections of points?

Did you actually look at the graphs? No, I suppose not. Killing the messenger is the modus operandi here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:39 PM

9. Refusing to be bamboozled by the rightwing propaganda press

is the modus operandi here.

This is DEMOCRATIC underground.

The Murdoch press is destroying America. That messenger deeply deserves to be criticized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to question everything (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 05:09 PM

15. Truthful media is required; rightwing billionaire-owned media is killlng us

Murdoch runs the same playbook at every newspaper he owns:
Install a handpicked editor to bias its coverage.
Happened at the Sun. The NY Post. The Times UK. The WSJ.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/24/top-wall-street-journal-editor-trashes-staffs-trump-article-in-emails-leaked-to-new-york-times/

The Wall Street Journal’s top editor once again appears to be facing discord from within his newsroom over the newspaper’s coverage of President Trump.
Since the election, some journalists at the Wall Street Journal have expressed frustration with what they say is overly cautious and deferential reporting on Trump, at a time when competitors are aggressively scrutinizing the president.
The most recent sign of discontent emerged Wednesday in emails leaked to the New York Times, along with the draft of a story critiqued by the editor in the emails. While internal emails and memos routinely leak from news organizations, story drafts do not.
According to the Times, Gerard Baker, the editor in chief of the Wall Street Journal, emailed a group of reporters and editors regarding the draft of a Journal article covering Trump’s rally in Phoenix. In his midnight message, Baker asked his staff to tone down language in the story that he characterized as opinionated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:41 PM

10. Ps also the article is largely right.

But the urban/rural red/blue strong economy/weak economy divides have been quite clear for a long time.

It’s just that you need that division AND propaganda in media to get the rural voters to deflect their populist anger away from the billionaires screwing them and onto immigrants. That propaganda is Murdoch’s stock in trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:49 PM

11. Took a Statistic

Course once. Data can be manipulated. I usually check out more than one source because of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowybirdie (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:52 PM

12. True, but ...

Those rich Republicans are increasingly outliers as the population ages. Pickens and David Koch both died within the last month, and the wealthiest oil barons at this point are all octagenarians. On the other hand, the tech barons - Gates, Ellison, etc. are mostly in their mid-60s at this stage and are more likely to be Democrats (or comparatively moderate Republicans).

On the flip-side, most minorities have benefited significantly with the technology economy. Lower barriers to entry have meant that you didn't need anywhere as large a financial stake to start a business, and that's had the additional impact of creating an upper lower class that is slowly defusing into the lower middle class, even as the central middle-class shrinks. The jobs that are going away - linework assembly within manufacturing, requiring skill but not necessarily college, which was concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast, and the very tail end of the Coal Economy (which was first superseded in the 1880s by the Oil Economy). Even there, there's unskilled work, but a very conservative culture in that region has trouble recognizing the legitimacy of that work because it comes out of the latte-sipping liberals' camp.

So, I would suspect the analysis is largely correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:30 PM

3. Funny how the GOP, as it has throughout most of my almost 69 year life, takes advantage of and

manipulates those who ultimately vote against their own interests. A significant share of these voters are lower income, unskilled and less educated, yet the GOP finds a way to appeal to them (racism, bigotry and so-called Christianity primarily). Yes, there are rural farmers and landowners who cherish their relative independent/individualist lifestyle who make a sizable chunk of GOP voters, but most fall into the "vote against their own economic interests" category.

It's mind-boggling. ...... And this is why I support Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, by way of straight-forward, clear, understandable, and persistently consistent messaging about
economic issues and how they affect common lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:37 PM

7. And hate radio is what fueled the tea party.

Our side has ignored hate radio for decades & we still do. I just don't get the blinders dem leadership & major dem orgs have to the impact of hate radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrispyQ (Reply #7)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 02:38 PM

8. Totally agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sat Sep 21, 2019, 03:25 PM

14. Red districts have much lower population density. Less folk means less money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Sep 22, 2019, 10:03 AM

19. As a liberal in the middle of rural TN

I really don't think the differences are that stark. Once ...before gerrymandering...east TN voted Democratic regularly. Switch up a few votes and they would vote democratic again.

My district is a snake wandering along the border. It's rigged to split up liberals and give the Cons a majority in each district.

Statistics can easily be manipulated. It's just another con from Murdoch's Wall Street Urinal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread