The Perfect President

What Americans say they want in the Oval Office.

We’re at that time of the year when the news cycle is so slow that the press need to make up things to write about. USA Today does its part with “In search of the perfect president: What Americans say they want, from age to gender.”

Americans in the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll did express preferences about the characteristics they found appealing in a president and the ones they said didn’t matter. In all that may be guideposts and red flags for the real people who will run or are thinking about it.

[…]

How old should the president be?

The sweet spot is later middle age, between 51 and 65 years old, the age group chosen by 50% of those surveyed. An additional 25% picked earlier middle age, 35 to 50 years old. 

[…]

Younger voters were more likely to prefer younger presidents. Among those under 35 years old, 41% said their ideal president would be between 35 and 50, the youngest age group eligible for the office.

Is it time for a female president? 

Maybe not.

Most voters, a 55% majority, volunteered that gender doesn’t matter. That would be news to Hillary Clinton and other female candidates, who believe they encountered political headwinds because of their sex. 

For a significant number of Americans, the Oval Office remains a man’s world. Overall, those who expressed a preference chose a man over a woman as ideal by more than 2-1, 28%-12%. 

Among Republicans, 50% said the ideal president would be male while a negligible 2% said she would be female. In contrast, Democrats with a preference chose a woman over a man by 2-1, 24%-11%.

Political independents were the most likely to say gender doesn’t matter. Nearly two-thirds, 63%, volunteered that view. 

Is there a gender gap on gender? 

Among those voters with a preference, men by 8-1 preferred a male president over a female one, 32%-4%. Women were somewhat more likely to prefer a male president as well, 25%-19%. 

The hometown effect: Where are you from? 

Most of those surveyed, 57%, said it doesn’t matter where a president is from. 

Those who said it does matter were inclined to favor someone from their own part of the country. The regional pull was strongest in the heartland, chosen by 27% of Midwesterners. The East Coast was preferred by 20% of those from the Northeast; the South by 18% of those from the South; the West Coast by 16% of those from the West.

Which party? How about neither? 

It’s no surprise that Democratic voters overwhelmingly wanted a Democratic president (71%) and Republican voters overwhelmingly wanted a Republican one (74%).

But there was notable support for a president not affiliated with either major political party. That was the preference not only of two-thirds of independents (67%) but also of 17% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans.

Younger voters were the least tethered to a party. Among those 18 to 35 years old, 31% preferred a Democratic president and 19% a Republican one, but a 41% plurality said their ideal president would be an independent.

Leadership style: Compromise or not?

By double digits, 57% to 34%, Americans want a president who compromises in order to get things done, rather than one who stands on principle no matter what.

But the differences behind the numbers help explain why actually getting things done often has proved to be so difficult in Washington. 

By 4-1, 74%-19%, Democrats want a president who will cut a deal. Republicans by 50%-38% prefer a president who stands on principle, even if it means things don’t get done.

That gap on leadership styles was one of the biggest partisan divides in the poll.

Political experience? Yes, but…

Experience in politics was seen as a plus by most voters. Democrats preferred senators over governors, 37%-32%. Republicans, in what may reflect a GOP antipathy for all things Washington, preferred governors over senators by 3-1, 36%-11%.

Among Republicans, there seemed to be some backlash to political experience. One-third, 32%, would prefer someone with no political experience.  

Business experience? Yes, but…

There was also a partisan divide on the value of business experience in the perfect president.

Overall, 56% said an ideal president would have a background in business. That included an overwhelming 85% of Republicans.

Among Democrats, however, there seemed to be some backlash to corporate experience. By 55%-29%, they preferred a president with no business background. That may reflect opposition to Trump, the real-estate magnate and reality-TV star who had never run for office until he won the presidency in 2016.

Military experience? Yes, but…

Service in the military was a clear asset among Republicans; 61% said their ideal president would have served in the military. Democratic views were more mixed: 31% favored a president who had served; 37% preferred one who had not. Another 31% volunteered that it didn’t matter one way or the other. 

Far and away the most likely winner of the 2024 election will be an almost-82-year-old man from the Mid-Atlantic states with no business or military background but plenty of experience in the Senate and White House. This, despite polling saying 6 in 10 don’t want either him or the other guy to run.

Otherwise, my generic preferences are pretty much in alignment with the plurality of those in the poll.

  • I value both youthful vigor and experience, so my sweet spot for President is in their 50s. (That’s where I am now but it’s been my preference for as long as I’ve had an opinion on the matter.)
  • I don’t know that I have a strong regional preference
  • I don’t know how one can govern under our system without the ability to compromise
  • I have no theoretical preference on sex but my other preferences make it far more likely that my preferred candidate will be a man
  • I’d prefer someone with substantial Executive experience, preferably a state governor, to someone who spent most of their career in the Congress
  • I see some value in business experience but wouldn’t want someone as President without substantial, high-level government experience
  • I see military experience as a strong plus but not a necessity

UPDATE: When unsuccessfully looking for an image for the post, I stumbled across this January 2000 essay from then-Whitman College president Thomas E. Cronin.

Most of us yearn for so many talents and qualities in our presidents that it comes close to wanting “God–on a good day.” We want vision, character, competence, intelligence, stamina, inspiration, judgment, wisdom–and we want someone who shares our political beliefs.

When looking for a new president, we also want a leader who can bring us together and bring out the best in us. But this is a tough assignment in a nation shaped by stalwart individualism and irreverence for government and centralized leadership institutions.

We justifiably look at candidates with a close and unforgiving eye, but perhaps we are unfair with pop quizzes, trick questions and denunciation of candidates for doing things we ourselves might have done. It seems we simultaneously want a candidate to be like us and better than us.

My ideal candidate, in addition to sharing my dreams and policy values, of course, would have the following attributes:

Courage. The willingness to take risks and try to serve all the people and not just those who bankrolled his or her candidacy. The intellectual courage to do what is right even when it is not popular of easy. And the guts not to give up after legislative or political defeats.

Experience and competence in bringing people together in teams to solve major policy problems; great skills as a negotiator and builder of policy agreements.

Political savvy. An understanding of the necessity for politics and the ability to be an effective politician working regularly with people of all political views who recognizes that coalition building is a central as well as constant part of the job.

An understanding of history and constitutionalism. A solid grasp of how governments and markets work and how trade and diplomacy operate, and a respect for the U.S. Constitution and the constraints it puts on leadership and government. Helpful, too, would be a sophisticated understanding and respect for the diverse political culture in the United States.

The ability and judgment to recruit wise advisors and effective administrators, and the wisdom to delegate to teams of colleagues. This requires, too, an understanding of the strategic tools for governing and an ability to empower public servants and volunteers at all levels of government.

Listening, learning and teaching skills. A leader has to both listen to us and lead us. We want leaders who give us a sense not only of who they are, but more importantly, of who we are, and what we as a nation might become.

Programmatic ideas and wisdom, and the ability to define plans, clarify options and help set the nation’s policy agenda. A president has to be preoccupied with the large, compelling issues of our day (economic opportunity for everyone, freedom, trade, nuclear proliferation, racism, equality, etc.)–a forest person, not overwhelmed by the trees or leaves. More hedgehog than fox, more wholesaler than retailer, more leader than manager. An ability to establish priorities and stick to them.

Communication and motivational skills. Ideas and wisdom are of little use if a president cannot rally the public and empower teams and constituencies to enact new plans. Having speaking and media conference skills and the ability to inspire and build new political coalitions are crucial.

Tenacity and discipline balanced with humility. Self-confidence and self-esteem are also essential. A thick skin helps in this generally thankless job just as the ability to laugh at oneself and to admit flaws and mistakes. Not wanted are persons who are defensive, rigid, torn by self-doubt or self-pity, or who blame their problems on “enemies” and are likely to punish people on personal “enemies lists.”

Intellectual honesty. We want presidents we can trust, who have a basic respect for others and a commitment to serve the public interest. A sense of decency, integrity and fair play. Honest, ethical leaders motivate us to higher levels of compassion and justice.

Morale-building and community-building skills. The presidency is far more than just a political or constitutional job; it is also an institution and office that has to help us through crises and transitions, and help unify us when we experience national setbacks and tragedy. Presidents at the best help remind us of our mutual obligations, shared beliefs, and the trust and caring that can hold us together in traditions and duty. Most Americans yearn for national leaders who can bring us together and challenge us–and our country–to be better.

Do we ask too much of our presidential candidates? Sure we do. History conditions different cultures to expect different things of their leaders. In the United States we exaggerate the capacity for what even heroic presidents can do to change the course of events. But we aren’t likely to lower our expectations.

Talented politicians are indispensable to making our constitutional democracy work. Two cheers for those who run and for all their helpers and advisors who provide us choices.

Americans will never be satisfied with our candidates, nor perhaps should we be. The ideal presidential candidate is probably a fictional entity, for the dream candidate would be able to please everyone and make conflict disappear. Such a person could exist only in an extremely small community in which liberty and rights (as we understand them) probably wouldn’t exist.

He ends on an optimistic note:

But the love of liberty invites diversity and therefore disagreements of ideology and values. Politicians and presidential candidates as well as the people they represent have different ideas about what is best for the nation.

That’s why we have politics, candidates, debates and elections. Let’s be thankful we do. And while we are at it, we should celebrate that this is our 54th presidential election. We have never postponed one because of wars, depressions, scandals or emergencies.

Alas, the last line is chilling in hindsight:

Let’s celebrate, too, that on 19 occasions we have peacefully transferred power from one party to a different party in our presidential elections. That’s no small achievement.

We made it to 21. The clock reset on January 6, 2021.

FILED UNDER: Public Opinion Polls, The Presidency, US Politics, , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Slugger says:

    These surveys are nice, but it is my sense that people don’t vote for president; they vote against the other guy. We vote to take down those liberals or that Trump guy, etc. That’s how we get the guys we get who differ from our ideals as much as our actual presidents.

    3
  2. Mu Yixiao says:

    Age: 50’s

    Region: Upper mid-west, purple state (so they’ve got a wider perspective, and more experience with compromise)

    Compromise: See above

    Sex: Don’t care

    Gov Experience: Optimal would be a governor, or mayor of a major city (e.g., Chicago)

    Biz Experience: Some, so they understand operating within a budget, supply chains, and negotiation

    Military Experience: Not necessary (that’s what the Joint Chiefs are for)

    (Optimally? I want Jed Bartlett.)

    1
  3. Sleeping Dog says:

    We want a god for president, but get a flawed human. At election time we have a binary choice and in the approval polls our comparison is to a god. Looking at Cronin’s wishes in a president beyond policy agreement, it would be an interesting discussion as to which presidents rate on his desires in a president. I suspect there would be some surprises.

  4. gVOR08 says:

    But there was notable support for a president not affiliated with either major political party.

    OK, most people haven’t had the benefit of Dr. T’s tutelage, and desires are not plans, but it’s hardly a testament to their understanding of politics that they think someone could be elected president without a party, or even get on the ballot.

    IM not so HO business experience should be a disqualifier. Who, of late, has had significant business experience? Trump. Romney, a man who held “47%” of the country in contempt. W sorta and Cheney between government gigs. HW sorta. Jimmy Carter sorta.

    Many years ago somebody did the common thing of asking historians to rate prezes and somebody wrote a good article on what the top rated had in common. I forget some of it, but what stood out, besides having a war, was that they had a serious interest in history and that they were career politicians with a start in local politics where they learned compromise and how to let everybody get a piece of the pie. The goal of business is to hog as much pie as possible.

    3
  5. Kathy says:

    Didn’t James Madison solve this issue long ago?

    “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. ”

    Get women to govern.

    2
  6. gVOR08 says:

    @Kathy: Head ring wraith, “No man can kill me.” Eowyn, “I am no man.” Without doing the homework, I expect a rating of modern national leaders would score the few women above the men’s average.

    2
  7. Michael Cain says:

    Perhaps I’m peculiar — okay, I know I’m peculiar, but in the particular way I’m getting to — but I don’t want a President who has ever been close to the military. Absent a truly major war, the President won’t have been a flag officer. Below that, well, we have many, many colonels and down to worry about the personnel. And the hundred-plus flag officers can worry about strategy and tactics and logistics. But there’s no one who seems to ask the question, “What’s in it for the civilians who are paying the bill?”

    Almost a trillion dollars a year is too much, by a lot. A million-person Army is either too big or too small for the foreseeable missions. An increasingly closed-off group with life experiences different from the civilians is a bad idea. I want a military that is firmly under the civilian thumb, and I want the military to understand that. Heads should have rolled over Iraq. More over Afghanistan. More over Ukraine and the (now obvious) fact that weapon planning and stockpiling has been horribly misguided.

    1
  8. OzarkHillbilly says:

    How old should the president be?
    Old enough to know better but young enough not to care.

    Is it time for a female president? 
    Past time, way past time.

    The hometown effect: Where are you from? 
    Who cares? Makes no kind of never mind to me.

    Which party?
    The party that takes governing serious, which leaves only one.

    Leadership style: Compromise or not?
    Can I say “It depends?” because it does. It depends on who, why, where, when, and what. Oh yeah, How as well.

    Business experience?
    I think business experience can be a detriment or an asset. If one thinks govt should run like a business, it’s going to be a disaster. If however one thinks govt should be run in such a way that businesses can run more efficiently, safely, in environmentally responsible ways, etc etc etc…

    Military experience?
    Same here. Military experience can be an asset if it informs one’s foreign policy and defense policy or a detriment if one thinks the presidency is issuing orders which are then obeyed without question.

    I find it interesting that they didn’t ask if a President should should be a lawyer. Or did they and it just didn’t make the post?

    5
  9. James Joyner says:

    @Michael Cain: I don’t think a military career is a plus but military experience is for the commander-in-chief. Having contemplated dying or sending others to die is clarifying.

    It’s worth noting that none of the Presidents in the GWOT era had any meaningful military experience. That may well have made them more deferential to the brass.

  10. Kathy says:

    @gVOR08:

    As far as experience goes, IMO a governor has executive experience as well as some political experience as regards dealing with a legislature. So that works for me.

    But what I’d really like is a candidate who’s lived paycheck to paycheck, even in a “good” type of job.

    4
  11. Skookum says:

    I am nearly 70, female, and have worked in the federal, military, and private sectors and have a college education. My preferences:

    Mid-50s to -70s

    College education

    Military experience a plus, but not a deal-breaker

    A member of some professional body that has a code of ethics with which he/she has abides

    If business background, demonstrated ethical behavior and success based on value added to society, not tax evasion or graft

    Gender not relevant (there are bad and good apples in all genders)

    Open to releasing taxes and health information

    Has ability and willingness to absorb a lot of information and learn while on the job

    Demonstrated ability to lead people and help them winnow through problems and solutions to achieve goals

    Has studied American history and holds “American” values (as opposed to attraction to international graft)

    3
  12. SC_Birdflyte says:

    I look for qualities: the dignity of Washington; the wisdom of Lincoln; the vigor of Theodore Roosevelt; the self-confidence and compassion of FDR; the experience of Eisenhower.

    2
  13. Jay L Gischer says:

    I just wanted to note this terrible, terrible application of statistics:

    Most voters, a 55% majority, volunteered that gender doesn’t matter. That would be news to Hillary Clinton and other female candidates, who believe they encountered political headwinds because of their sex.

    That means 45% of voters think gender does matter. This is the part that makes this not surprising to Hillary Clinton, et al. This is the headwind they face. There is nothing at all inconsistent with this particular poll result. Just an awful understanding of math and statistics, coupled with a nice prose style, which got them the job.

    Apparently, fast copy with nice style AND a good understanding of math is too much to ask for.

    6
  14. gVOR08 says:

    @Jay L Gischer: It’s a hobby horse of mine that we would live in a better world if journalists were numerate.

    3
  15. @gVOR08: That’s immediately where my mind went as well.

  16. @gVOR08:

    OK, most people haven’t had the benefit of Dr. T’s tutelage, and desires are not plans, but it’s hardly a testament to their understanding of politics that they think someone could be elected president without a party, or even get on the ballot.

    Not to mention that most people think that “independent” means “more like me!”

    1
  17. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Mu Yixiao: The person you’re describing is Scott Walker. Hard pass. 🙁
    (And Wikipedia notes that Jed Bartlet was from New Hampshire, just for the record.)

    1
  18. Andy says:

    @Michael Cain:

    Heads should have rolled over Iraq. More over Afghanistan. More over Ukraine and the (now obvious) fact that weapon planning and stockpiling has been horribly misguided.

    Heads did roll over the first two – and the heads were those who opposed what the civilian administration wanted to do. Remember that Bush told the military not to plan for Phase IV (post-combat stability) operations because the civilian agencies would manage that.

    And this is leaving aside fundamentals of war that many civilians don’t understand – which revolve around the limitations of what war can achieve. Afghanistan simply wasn’t a winnable war through military means. US forces decisively defeated the Taliban quickly and kept them at bay for two decades – the failure there was the lack of a legitimate governing alternative to the Taliban, and that’s something that military force cannot create.

    Iraq’s factionalism and penchant for civil conflict can’t be addressed by US combat power either. And the irony is that one of the greatest achievements in the war, the “awakening” was hinged on diplomacy with Sunni factions.

    When it comes to military readiness and preparation, including stockpiles, one can’t be opposed to huge defense budgets and, at the same time, expect the military to be prepared for everything, or have sufficient stockpiles for a large proxy land war. Such decisions require tradeoffs based on risk and other factors – one of which is a fickle Congress. And how well did we stockpile medical supplies, like masks, prior to the pandemic, despite knowing that a pandemic was likely?

    Stockpiles were explicitly designed for short wars, which is what we’ve fought for the past 50 years. The assumption was that the country would mobilize production in a long, major war and a major reason for that is that maintaining large stockpiles and excess production capacity is very expensive – at least if you want those stockpiles to be usable when the war starts.

    That isn’t a strategy limited to the United States – every government does that except, maybe, North Korea. Our NATO allies were a lot worse than us – their stockpiles only supported a week of major combat opeartions, which is why they are so completely dependent on the US. Russia has the same problem – it also does not have the military-industrial base, nor did it have the stockpiles to support many months of major combat operations.

    That said, I agree with you that I don’t think senior military officers necessarily make good Presidents (although Eisenhower is a notable exception). I’d prefer someone who was enlisted who had combat experience and who understands the stakes and consequences. I would just note that most of the warmongers among our political elite do not have such experience and are advocates knowing that they and theirs will not likely suffer the consequences of war.

    Civilian leaders have made a lot of very dumb decisions. A lack of military experience is hardly a guarantee that a leader understands even the basic fundamentals of war. And one of my long-standing complaints is how our government has not increased the capacity of the non-military foreign policy agencies like the State Department. That leaves the military as the only option for many scenarios when military force is not appropriate.

    2
  19. James Joyner says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    most people think that “independent” means “more like me!”

    Relatedly, it’s much easier to rally support against something—which people can oppose for all manner of reasons—than support for something. It’s easy to be against deficit spending and tax increases but harder to get a majority behind the requisite cuts to Program A.

    3
  20. Andy says:

    For President, I have two main requirements and these are the primary criteria I use to determine who to vote for:

    – Executive leadership – The major function of the office is running the Executive branch. Those who are more interested in twisting Executive administration for ideological ends as opposed to administrative efficiency and fairness are much less likely to get my support.
    – Foreign policy – Given that Presidents have wide latitude in FP and the geostrategic importance of FP, having some experience or at least the right vision and principles is essential IMO.

    Age: Not too old. I think for most people, someone in their 50’s is probably ideal.

    Region: I think it’s time for a Mountain West President. I supported Hickenlooper in 2020, and if Jared Polis were to run, I would support him.

    Compromise: Always necessary, but it depends on how much and what they are willing to compromise on. I prefer politicians who are pragmatic vs those who are ideological die-hards. A President needs to understand he/she is the President of everyone and not some insular and small ideological faction. See Jared Polis and Hickenlooper for two good examples of pragmatic politicians.

    Sex: I don’t care, although I would prefer a woman if everything else is equal.

    Government Experience: Since one of the primary roles of the office is running the Executive branch, I strongly prefer someone with executive leadership experience.

    Business Experience: Not necessarily a business leader, but experience in the private sector to understand how the private sector works. I see too many politicians who have spent their entire lives in government and its handmaid industries and do not understand what private sector actors need to deal with.

    Military Experience: Optional – more critical is having sound foreign policy principles and an understanding of the limitations and costs of war.

    2
  21. Andy says:

    @James Joyner:

    And most everyone likes compromise as long as someone else does the vast majority of it.

    4
  22. Mu Yixiao says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    The person you’re describing is Scott Walker.

    It’s also Russ Feingold (though Senate, not governor).

    1
  23. MarkedMan says:

    I don’t find this exercise all that helpful. The odds of one of the Presidential candidates fulfilling all of one’s criteria is small. The odds that they can get elected, smaller. And the odds that they turn out how you had imagined is even smaller. For me, the best presidential candidate is one who has a proven they have sensible policies, understand the responsibilities of the president and the ability to get things done, and also can get past a primary and a general (an independent would be powerless and therefore useless). We get to chose from such a limited field that to me it is only worth concentrating on those. [Grinch mode out]

  24. Tony W says:

    I am of the perspective that business experience as a worker is fine, but business leadership experience is a significant detriment to good governance.

    In my Fortune 10-ish company, leadership was solely focused on the current quarter’s earnings to the detriment of every single other business goal. We delayed hiring until the next quarter. We delayed training. They pushed large sales off to a future quarter when the current quarter’s numbers were already satisfied. They sell ‘what’s on the truck’ rather than what customers need.

    Government, by contrast, is benevolent. Its goal is everyone’s success, not just our own. Government creates winners and losers, but must do so to the greater good – not to the benefit of governmental leaders.

    Workers or even line management experience is a positive thing because those folks can see the ramifications of shortcuts and half-measures.

    2
  25. MarkedMan says:

    @Mu Yixiao:

    and more experience with compromise

    I don’t think that you need to be from a purple state to understand compromise. As an executive did you get things done despite large groups of powerful people not wanting those things or wanting something else instead? That’s what matters. Do you really think effective governors from CA, NY or MA are unfamiliar with compromise? Or tough opponents?

  26. MarkedMan says:

    @Tony W:

    In my Fortune 10-ish company, leadership was solely focused on the current quarter’s earnings to the detriment of every single other business goal.

    I agree that business experience can be detrimental. In the case you are describing, the Chief Executives are just glorified employees who must run the business according to the numbers Wall Street expects, and it is McKinsey who decides what the “right” direction is, not the CEO’s themselves.

    In the case of someone who actually built a small business up into a big one, they usually have no idea how to operate within the constraints dictated by a political system. Ross Perot was the best example of this. He truly seemed to believe in his “down home wisdom” and “cut the bull” rhetoric, but it just revealed what a political naif he was. His biggest applause line was about how he would lock everyone in a room until they reached a budget agreement, but I remember thinking, ‘How, exactly, do you lock Tip O’Neil in a room? Isn’t that kidnapping?’ Perot was used to having a bunch of execs working for him who he could fire if they pushed him too far. Tip O’Neil knew the President needed him a lot more than he needed the President, especially if that President was an Independent. Every committee chairman, hell, every Senator and Rep knew the same thing. If they were in a room with Perot and got tired of his strutting monkey act, they would just walk out.

    1
  27. Mu Yixiao says:

    @MarkedMan:

    Do you really think effective governors from CA, NY or MA are unfamiliar with compromise? Or tough opponents?

    I’m not talking about compromise with opponents, but political & practical compromise. Where a person can say “I want X to happen, but it will only help half the people. Y doesn’t accomplish the goal as well, but it helps 90% of the people, and they’ll all think it’s a good idea”. What’s going to help both the urban and rural populations?

    De Santos is never going to consider what the blue/urban areas of the state want. And Hochul isn’t going to pay much attention to what the rural up-state voters want. I believe that someone from a purple state is (by necessity) going understand both sides, and be able to find a middle ground (internal compromise) that will move things forward with the broadest (though not most impactful) benefit.

    1
  28. MarkedMan says:

    @Mu Yixiao:

    I believe that someone from a purple state is (by necessity) going understand both sides, and be able to find a middle ground (internal compromise) that will move things forward with the broadest (though not most impactful) benefit.

    I’m not sure it makes sense to equate rural/urban divide with purple state. The only states with more than 50% rural population (Maine, Vermont, West Virginia and Mississippi) aren’t purple. All in all the population of the country is 3/4 urban. It seems like every rural person thinks that they possess some innate American-ness that the rest of us don’t, and therefore deserve to have a controlling vote in the Senate and House and should be given priority in the selection of primary candidates. I don’t agree, and while there are some exemplars of good governance in the top 10 most rural states (Vermont and perhaps Maine) more of them are examples of what to avoid, or only exist due to massive federal subsidies.

    As for the purple states, here’s one list: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. None are in the top ten most rural states, with New Hampshire and Iowa coming in at 11 and 12, respectively.

    4
  29. Mu Yixiao says:

    @MarkedMan:

    Why would they need to be more than 50% rural? Why are you insisting on this a metric?

    Wisconsin is a perennial purple state in national elections. It has 2 “major” cities, and half a dozen mid-sized ones. The rest is rural–and makes up a large portion of the industry. Governor up until Walker did a fairly good job of balancing the needs of the very blue urban areas like Milwaukee and Madison, with those of the deep red counties. Not “50/50 balance”, but keeping things equitable and spreading the resources to where they can benefit the most people. So, to pull some numbers out of the air, 20% on the rural areas to keep agriculture and industry operating with relatively modern infrastructure, 20% on suburban and small-town areas where sustainable growth is an issue, and 60% on urban areas where smaller, more directed efforts can have an outsized impact.

    All in all the population of the country is 3/4 urban.

    And 97% of the land area is rural. And NO, I am NOT saying that the people there should get 97% of the say in things. But it’s important to remember that the 97% of rural area is where the farms are that grow the food, where the roads are that deliver the food, where the factories are that make the trucks that deliver the food, where the mines and quarries are that produce the materials used to make the cities. It’s important to the 79% of the population that lives in urban areas that the rural infrastructure is kept up, and protected from damage, that the people there have resources such as clean water, hospitals, good schools, employment, and security in their homes.

    Wyoming should NOT have an equal say to California in the Senate. They should NOT have an outsized say in the House. I am not saying that, and I never have.

    But it’s important to understand that rural America is a vital part of the structure of the US, and an appropriate amount of attention and resources should be going there–so that they can keep producing the things needed by the 79% in the cities.

    This has zero to do with moral superiority or “innate Americanness”. It has to do with guarding, maintaining, and improving an important part of the supply chain. I think we’ve all seen what happens when that “unimportant” part in the middle suddenly breaks down.

    =====
    * Not total business by GDP, or whatever metric you’re going to insist on, but industry–farming, manufacturing, lumber, etc.–which are important to the economy.

  30. MarkedMan says:

    @Mu Yixiao:

    Why would they need to be more than 50% rural? Why are you insisting on this a metric?

    OK, so what is your metric? You said:

    Region: Upper mid-west, purple state (so they’ve got a wider perspective, and more experience with compromise)

    and

    And Hochul isn’t going to pay much attention to what the rural up-state voters want. I believe that someone from a purple state is (by necessity) going understand both sides,

    If your criterion is “the person should understand the importance of our farm infrastructure” then why is NY or CA automatically ruled out? CA has a huge agriculture sector. They supply a heck of a lot of the four season green stuff that the entire nation eats. And NY state probably has more acreage under plow and more dairy herds than many of the “rural” states.

    Look, I get it. Southerners want Southerners as President. Mid-Westerners want Mid-Westerners. But there is nothing innate about a Wisconsin or Kansan governor that makes them automatically better qualified for the job than someone from Massachusetts or Washington State.

    3
  31. Michael Cain says:

    @MarkedMan:

    As for the purple states, here’s one list: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    Colorado used to be purple. (and before that, red; we’ve lived here for the full transition). We’re no longer considered a battleground state. The Democrats hold every statewide office and have large majorities in both state legislative chambers. Last month, in a year supposed to be a red wave, the blue majorities at the statehouse increased. One member of the Republican leadership here said on Wednesday after the election, “It doesn’t matter what kind of candidates we run, our whole brand is toxic.”

    @Mu Yixiao:

    I believe that someone from a purple state is (by necessity) going understand both sides, and be able to find a middle ground (internal compromise) that will move things forward with the broadest (though not most impactful) benefit.

    On the urban/rural here, based on my time on the legislative staff, it’s hard to have a meaningful conversation with the rurals. Despite the Front Range subsidizing their schools, their roads, their communications, their electricity, and their health care, they’re fond of publicly saying “The Front Range has declared war on rural Colorado.” Based on assorted conversations as a staffer, trying to understand what a rural member’s amendment was supposed to say, the only thing I feel confident of is that they would like to be a poor, low-population, agricultural state again, and will never forgive the Front Range for the population boom that made us wealthy, middle-sized, with a broad high-tech economy.

    4
  32. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Mu Yixiao: Well, it’s Russ Feingold 20 or so years ago. He’s only a year younger than I am. (Born in 1953, 1952 for me.)

  33. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @MarkedMan: Indeed! It reminded me of the same discussions of what we want to want only to reject the opportunity given the chance to have that choice. We see it clearly in the idea that we would prefer a woman–as long as it’s not Hillary or Condoleezza or Elizabeth or Amy or…

  34. Andy says:

    @MarkedMan:

    All in all the population of the country is 3/4 urban.

    It depends on how you define urban vs rural. If it’s the census standard, then it is about 80% because the census considers anything that isn’t rural to be urban (although the census changed the definitions for the latest census, and the official maps and stats haven’t been published yet). But that lumps suburbs, exurbs, and other areas in with urban cores, which isn’t useful when it comes to political demographics. I live in a front-range suburb here in Colorado and it is a very different living environment than, for instance, the city of Denver itself. But both my area and central Denver is considered “urban.” Not very useful IMO.

    A majority of Americans – about ~55% – live in suburbs or small metro areas. It’s usually these areas that decide elections, and those are the areas that are growing at the expense of truly urban and rural areas.

    1
  35. Andy says:

    @Michael Cain:

    On the urban/rural here, based on my time on the legislative staff, it’s hard to have a meaningful conversation with the rurals.

    That’s interesting. I have never served on a legislative staff, but I’ve spent a lot of time in various parts of the state, and I don’t think all our rural areas are the same. What you describe feels pretty accurate regarding the eastern counties, much less so for many parts of the mountains and western slope.

  36. Michael Cain says:

    @Andy: The Census Bureau has finally entered the 21st century and now supports density calculations based on “built area” rather than just “county area”. (Well, you have to work at it, but at least it’s possible.) Some conventional wisdom is turning out to be wrong. Examples… (1) The West and the Northeast (CB classification of states) are about equally dense in the areas where people actually live, and both are much denser than the Midwest and South. (2) Suburbs in the West run about twice as dense as those anywhere else. (3) California noses out NY for densest, and the LA CSA is slightly denser than the NYC CSA.

    Some of this is not new. When my family moved from NJ to Colorado 35 years ago, and I was looking for a house, my immediate reaction driving around was, “Houses in Colorado suburbs are much closer together than houses in NJ suburbs, and there are a lot more apartments.”

    1
  37. Andy says:

    @Michael Cain:

    That’s interesting context, thanks.

    My family has lived in Colorado since around 1900. My dad was a WWII vet who went into building after the war and constructed many houses and commercial buildings in the fast-expanding areas around Denver, especially Jefferson county.

  38. Michael Cain says:

    @Andy:

    I don’t think all our rural areas are the same. What you describe feels pretty accurate regarding the eastern counties, much less so for many parts of the mountains and western slope.

    I believe you for the general population. One of Cain’s Laws™ is that the overall structure of American government almost guarantees that the people elected to legislative bodies will be older, whiter, richer, more often male, and more conservative than their constituencies. A mountain district is more likely to be represented by a third-generation rancher than by the newer people building the contemporary economy. Or at least, that was true 10-12 years ago. Maybe not so much today.

    One of the corollaries of that law is that hourly wage slaves aged 21-40 are the most underrepresented group in the country today when you look at the legislatures.

    2
  39. Michael Cain says:

    @Andy:

    My dad was a WWII vet who went into building after the war and constructed many houses and commercial buildings in the fast-expanding areas around Denver, especially Jefferson county.

    I lived in Arvada for 32 years. Jefferson County is an excellent example of the reason western state densities were misstated for so long. Something over 50% of the county’s area is completely off limits to significant development because of national land, state parks, open space, and just being too vertical. There are hard limits to how far “suburban sprawl” can go. My Arvada zip code had a population density in 2010 of 3,500 people per square mile. That’s way up into “urban” in most of the academic work done in the US, not suburban.

    1
  40. MarkedMan says:

    @Andy:

    But both my area and central Denver is considered “urban.” Not very useful IMO.

    I’m familiar with the front range and know several people who live there (although, now that I think about it, have no idea why it is called the front range) and it sure as heck seems urban to me. They expect their streets to have streetlights and to be plowed, their trash to get collected on a regular basis and, in general, for the roads and schools and water systems to be maintained. Heck, most of them have water from a main and flush their toilets into sewers. Sure seems urban to me. I’ve lived in the rural/urban transition area and one of the things that drove officials up a wall was fielding angry calls from people inconvenienced because their roads were pitch dark at night, or that farmers spread manure on their fields a couple of times a year or, god forbid, drove tractors on the public road. None of those things describe the front range as I know it.

    1
  41. Andy says:

    @Michael Cain:

    I grew up in Wheatridge and then Lakewood. That is one of the great things about Jefferson county and the western part of the Denver metro generally – lots of open space for hiking and outdoor activities. Actually, that’s true for a lot of the front range.

    I now live in El Paso county – the Denver area was too expensive for us when we moved back here in 2018 – and too crowded.

    @MarkedMan:

    I’m familiar with the front range and know several people who live there (although, now that I think about it, have no idea why it is called the front range)

    The Front Range is the easternmost sub-range of the Rocky Mountains that runs roughly from Pueblo to Wyoming. Basically, it’s the range of mountains that “fronts” the Rockies to the plains. Colloquially, all the areas on the immediate plains east of these mountains live on the “front range.” In other words, most of the state’s population.

    it sure as heck seems urban to me

    It depends on how you define urban. Most of this area is what I would call suburbs – ie. lots of single-family zoning and everything that comes with that.

    They expect their streets to have streetlights and to be plowed, their trash to get collected on a regular basis and, in general, for the roads and schools and water systems to be maintained.

    There are very few places in this state, urban, suburban, or rural, where that isn’t the norm.

    1
  42. MarkedMan says:

    @Andy:

    It depends on how you define urban. Most of this area is what I would call suburbs

    As in many of these types of discussion, it turns out we agree on what something is but disagree on what we call it. To me, suburbs are definitely urban. In all the cities I have lived, there are many neighborhoods of single family homes with front, back and side yards.

  43. Andy says:

    @MarkedMan:

    I think there needs to be some kind of distinction between the denser city cores and the less dense outlying areas and small metros. Calling it all urban papers over the many differences between these areas. The 80% of the population that doesn’t live in rural areas needs some greater descriptive fidelity than labeling it all “urban” for it to be useful. At least IMO.

    If there’s a better term for less dense outlying areas of a metro than the long-standing word “suburb,” then I don’t know what that is. Same with small metros.

    You compare, for instance, Montpelier, VT (8k population), Cheyenne, WY (65k) and Denver, CO (~700k), all are urban state capitals but they are very different in important ways that the “urban” label papers over.

    This is particularly true of political leanings. Democrats do very well in dense urban cores. Republicans do very well in rural areas. The remaining roughly 65% of the population live in small metros and suburbs which are much more complex politically and are generally where contests are decided.

  44. wr says:

    @Mu Yixiao: “And Hochul isn’t going to pay much attention to what the rural up-state voters want. ”

    I wish that were true, but Hochul comes from Buffalo and has already forced through a mulit-billion dollar deal to use my taxes to build a new stadium for the Bills. She seems very attuned to the upstate voters. You might be better off using Gavin Newsom as your example…