Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there is a lot to this argument. You can argue over the mason-dixon line, the census regions, the fast population growth, the lack of any traditional industry and accompanying ethnic immigrants.
But at the end of the day, DC and MD vote for the same economic and cultural policies that liberal North Easterners in the Philly (135 miles), NYC (226 miles away), and even Boston (440 miles aways) do.
The MD electorate is far closer to MA and NJ than NC or GA.
And people in Ohio, Indiana, Montana, and often Pennsylvania and New Hampshire vote more alike Georgia than Maryland and New Jersey.
By the way, New Jersey voted in a Republican governor recently.
The rural northeast takes up a larger square mileage of northeastern land than populated areas and the megalopolis.
That's true, but it's also way less populated, so I don't see how it's more pronounced. Don't you usually define a place's culture by the area where most of the people are, not just some of em? Not that I'm saying rural life isn't part of the Northeast, like Northern New England, Eastern Pa and Upstate NY, but even those places have a history of heavy industry and immigration. Anyway, I don't see anyone denying those rural places in our culture, it's there, and there's alotta people proud of it too.
That's true, but it's also way less populated, so I don't see how it's more pronounced. Don't you usually define a place's culture by the area where most of the people are, not just some of em? Not that I'm saying rural life isn't part of the Northeast, like Northern New England, Eastern Pa and Upstate NY, but even those places have a history of heavy industry and immigration. Anyway, I don't see anyone denying those rural places in our culture, it's there, and there's alotta people proud of it too.
Most southerners live in suburbs and cities, not in the rural areas, the same as it is in all regions of the U.S. The agricultural South, in which a majority of the population was rural, is a thing of the past. People in cities became the majority in the South back in the 50s or 60s, and today it isn't even close.
Thus, if you're going to claim that we can't argue in favor of the culture based on rural areas and populations of the northeast, the same also can be said for the South.
Do you honestly think that the South doesn't have cities, high population areas, and the like?
Do you honestly think that the South doesn't have cities, high population areas, and the like?
The cities in the south are not as densely populated as the cities in the northeast. And the southern cities are very spread apart compared to the northeast. This is simply a fact.
As a whole, the northeast is the most developed and populated region in the U.S., particularly the stretch from Washington, D.C. to New York City. (That's assuming we agree that Washington, D.C. is in the northeast. :-)
Most southerners live in suburbs and cities, not in the rural areas, the same as it is in all regions of the U.S. The agricultural South, in which a majority of the population was rural, is a thing of the past. People in cities became the majority in the South back in the 50s or 60s, and today it isn't even close.
Thus, if you're going to claim that we can't argue in favor of the culture based on rural areas and populations of the northeast, the same also can be said for the South.
Do you honestly think that the South doesn't have cities, high population areas, and the like?
Umm, no, I don't think that all, and I never thought or said anything like it, and I didn't see who did. Also I didn't say you couldn't argue on the rural areas of the North, it's definitely part of the culture, I just wouldn't say it's more pronounced.
The cities in the south are not as densely populated as the cities in the northeast. And the southern cities are very spread apart compared to the northeast. This is simply a fact.
As a whole, the northeast is the most developed and populated region in the U.S., particularly the stretch from Washington, D.C. to New York City. (That's assuming we agree that Washington, D.C. is in the northeast. :-)
And that's one good reason I wouldn't say it's more pronounced. Though you don't need D.C. in the Northeast for that to be true.
The cities in the south are not as densely populated as the cities in the northeast. And the southern cities are very spread apart compared to the northeast. This is simply a fact.
As a whole, the northeast is the most developed and populated region in the U.S., particularly the stretch from Washington, D.C. to New York City. (That's assuming we agree that Washington, D.C. is in the northeast. :-)
First of all, you're wrong about the northeast being the most populated region. The South is the most populated region, by a long shot. The South is home to over one hundred million people. The next closest region is the midwest with somewhere around eighty million.
While I will agree with you that the northeast has a higher population density, a product of it being smaller geographically-speaking, and having a chain of large cities occupying a considerable portion of its territory, it doesn't have the largest population. Admittedly, the small geographic size of the northeast plays a role in this.
That said, there are huge swaths of the northeast that are less-developed than what you'll find in most areas of the South, even many of the rural areas.
The cities in the South are not spread any farther apart than what can be found outside of the megalopolis of the northeast. That is, it's on par, or even closer, if considering in comparison to the western U.S., than the rest of the country.
The cities of the South are not as densely populated, but such is more of a product of when southern cities experienced most of their growth, in the post-WWII era, a time for suburbs. As such, the largest southern cities are no small metro areas, and appear much larger than Boston, in a geographic-physical-built-up sense, and on-par with Philadelphia, perhaps larger.
And that's one good reason I wouldn't say it's more pronounced. Though you don't need D.C. in the Northeast for that to be true.
It's a nice icing on the cake though. Given that the top 5 most densely populated states are New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachussetts, Connecticut and Maryland. And Washington, D.C. would top them all if it were a state.
It's a nice icing on the cake though. Given that the top 5 most densely populated states are New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachussetts, Connecticut and Maryland. And Washington, D.C. would top them all if it were a state.
You do realize that tiny states are generally always going to be the most densely populated, as long as there is a decent-sized city within it?
I could carve out an area the size of Rhode Island in half the area of metro Atlanta in north Georgia, label it "Georgia", and it'd be the most dense state in the nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
