I agree with Bill,I don't think today can be compared to any other in American History.

It's not history that repeats itself, it's the nature of mankind that is repetitive.


fltsfshr

 

One thing I find interesting is the breakdown of how the voting went this last election. Even in Texas, a state Bush won by 61% to 38%, results for Dallas county were only 50% Bush, 49% Kerry. Harris Country (has the city of Houston) was 55% to 45%. Travis Country (Austin) was 56% Kerry, 42% Bush. Look in various other states that Bush won, and you'll see that for the most part, Kerry won or had good showings. Another example - in Florida, Kerry won only 16% of the 68 counties. But he won the top three most populous conties, and half of the top 10. Philadelphia county picked Kerry 81% to 19%. In Nebraska, even in his strongest county Kerry lost 57% to 42% - that was in the county with the second most number of votes cast.

So there's a definite trend here, although I'm no statistician and this ain't scientific in any way. That trend being that large cities went Dem and more rural communities went Rep.

So to me, the time period this most reminds me of is one in which we had two sorts of populations in very different economic and social environments. It's a lifestyle difference. Industry vs farming. Small towns vs high-rise living. Back then, it was typically North vs South.

Not that I'm saying we'll be in a cival war any time soon but just like in that era, there are some definite differences in how people live in America, and what they want out of a government - maybe not because of their lifestyle, but there's a definitely correlation.

If the urban/rural populations of America vote for something or other (use your imagination), does that mean it's necesarily good for the other group?