Nationally, the US is having a red-state versus blue-state debate and this story tries to zoom in on local explanations rather than the weird national partisan contrasts.
This is congressional district 3, where Boebert won by primarying an established Republican. She gained traction with the national message that the legislative branch is dysfunctional, yet every constituent I meet knows it’s competitive and pragmatic. Her predecessor and challenger each could achieve specific improvements. Doing that job turned out too hard for her, and seeking national attention is itself a full-time job.
For example, Silverton is the last county seat in Colorado without fiber. So remote that finishing the line will take funds promoted by persistent politicians at the state and federal level. Yet, it’s a local issue; so you bet locals want to pressure their Congressional rep to work hard. Instead, the executive branch gets credit for any noticeable infrastructure improvements that CD3 experiences.
So, in the national partisan environment where the Democratic Party is often skewered for an obsession with identity politics, their President is in fact winning on the ground with boring infrastructure.
I don't think its red state vs blue state. I think its urban areas/cities vs suburbs/rural areas. And you can't really split this up by state.
And this is more fundamental than income and skin color/identity politics since these are geniunely different lifestyles that can't be served by 1 political party. There seems to be some realignment happening. (modern day version of the book - the town mouse and the country mouse).
And by "serve" i mean each member with D/R next to their name will bend to the party as the avg. Look at Angus King from Maine. ik there was a mass shooting etc but in pro gun maine, independent senator king (but caucus with D) just proposed an "assault weapon ban" that CA/WA/NY/MA etc has. This is one example but it happens for other things to.
What does the future look like? Somewhere between perputual rule by a few cities with Singapore/Dubai/Hong Kong level power to a "national divorce"/balkanization/threats of succession or ignoring the federal government. I'm not too optimistic so im leaning towards the latter. The soviet union fell just 2 decades ago. This isn't too out of left field.
Of course, do remember that the original USA legal structure was _explicitly_ designed to avoid "the tyranny of the majority". It was founded by a number of different religious sects, and the small ones didn't want to be dominated by the big ones. A rural person in flyover country would care a lot less about what the Coastals think, except that what they think is being increasingly pressed upon them on many, many fronts.
Nationally, the US is having a red-state versus blue-state debate and this story tries to zoom in on local explanations rather than the weird national partisan contrasts.
This is congressional district 3, where Boebert won by primarying an established Republican. She gained traction with the national message that the legislative branch is dysfunctional, yet every constituent I meet knows it’s competitive and pragmatic. Her predecessor and challenger each could achieve specific improvements. Doing that job turned out too hard for her, and seeking national attention is itself a full-time job.
For example, Silverton is the last county seat in Colorado without fiber. So remote that finishing the line will take funds promoted by persistent politicians at the state and federal level. Yet, it’s a local issue; so you bet locals want to pressure their Congressional rep to work hard. Instead, the executive branch gets credit for any noticeable infrastructure improvements that CD3 experiences.
So, in the national partisan environment where the Democratic Party is often skewered for an obsession with identity politics, their President is in fact winning on the ground with boring infrastructure.
I don't think its red state vs blue state. I think its urban areas/cities vs suburbs/rural areas. And you can't really split this up by state.
And this is more fundamental than income and skin color/identity politics since these are geniunely different lifestyles that can't be served by 1 political party. There seems to be some realignment happening. (modern day version of the book - the town mouse and the country mouse).
And by "serve" i mean each member with D/R next to their name will bend to the party as the avg. Look at Angus King from Maine. ik there was a mass shooting etc but in pro gun maine, independent senator king (but caucus with D) just proposed an "assault weapon ban" that CA/WA/NY/MA etc has. This is one example but it happens for other things to.
What does the future look like? Somewhere between perputual rule by a few cities with Singapore/Dubai/Hong Kong level power to a "national divorce"/balkanization/threats of succession or ignoring the federal government. I'm not too optimistic so im leaning towards the latter. The soviet union fell just 2 decades ago. This isn't too out of left field.
Of course, do remember that the original USA legal structure was _explicitly_ designed to avoid "the tyranny of the majority". It was founded by a number of different religious sects, and the small ones didn't want to be dominated by the big ones. A rural person in flyover country would care a lot less about what the Coastals think, except that what they think is being increasingly pressed upon them on many, many fronts.
https://archive.md/YaIcM