This seems to be a sample of adults, not voters (though the link isn't all that illuminating on how it was carried out). To figure out the proportion of voters voting for Bush, you'd have to discard non-voters. This information isn't available from the link.

Sorry. Upon reading more deeply into the Center for Rural Strategies website, I realize I should have referred to "Mr." Davis in my comment, not "Ms." Interesting website!

I'm all for not giving up rural votes, and the author makes a few good points, but can we put to rest the tired idea that Obama was secretly disparaging rural voters with his comments about bitterness and clinging? For starters, I'm not sure the author's characterizations are very different from Obama's:

Democrats should not be surprised when rural voters drift towards those institutions that stick around, like the churches, which often reinforce socially conservative ideas, and when rural voters prefer those politicians who actually ask for their votes.

How is this all that different from Obama's point in his infamous San Francisco fundraising comment? The entire controversy was ginned up from the start to sow division in Democratic ranks.

What's more, rural poor people aren't the only ones who cling to churches. Urban poor people also cling to churches, frequently churches with socially conservative ideas, and also churches led by black ministers. Both rural and urban have been left behind by a suburbanizing nation (hint: that's where most of the Republicans are...). The trick here is to forge more working (and working class) urban-rural coalitions. I hope Ms. Davis keeps that in mind.

This is a topic that's received considerable sociological interest, from Thorstein Veblen's scrumptious writing on conspicuous consumption and invidious comparison to Pierre Bourdieu's enormously influential tome on "Distinction." In effect, taste is a social construct, and all about the production of social distinction. It is how we distance ourselves from others, and typically define ourselves as a bit more deserving. So Veblen's "The Theory of the Leisure Class" and Bourdieu's "Distinction" might be good books to add to your reading list. (More recently, there's also a literature developing on how the privileged in North America have become "cultural omnivores" who mark their distinction by sampling broadly - hence the high/low reference to indicating where you might draw your reading material from...)

What really intrigues me, though, is how our tastes become wrapped up with morality. Michele Lamont, another sociologist, ("Money, Morals, and Manners," I think) has written that this is often how it works in the USA (as compared with France, where Bourdieu's work is set). This gets me thinking.

We act as consumers, and our actions as consumers have effects in the marketplace. That's why I try to buy organic stuff and avoid meat that isn't free-range. The snobbery in my consumption is also bound up with morality. I honestly think organic production methods are better for the environment and the current way meat is produced in North America is unethical. I'm struggling with how this differs from production chains more intimately tied up with the production of discourse. Buying a book by a right-wing, anti-tax crusader means that publishers are encouraged to publish more books by right-wing, anti-tax crusaders. Even checking out a library book encourages the library system to stock more of those kinds of books. Even attending a talk where those crusaders are featured encourages lecture organizers to recruit (and pay) more of those kind of speakers.

This is the dilemma for me. I like the idea of promoting discourse, reading widely, etc. For better or worse, I am something of a cultural omnivore. But I'm also attempting to remain aware of my moral position within a larger production/consumption chain. The production and consumption of discourse remains a big part of this chain. There are tangible rewards for having your ideas "consumed." Are my obligations to be a moral consumer dropped in the realm of discourse? Why or why not?

Incidentally, I'm also very fond of chickadees.

For the record, I'm pretty sure I counted 3 Obama, 2 Clinton, 1 McCain from the interviews. Nice to see reporting on this issue.

I think another poster has already mentioned that the fertility figure you quote is off. A Total Fertility Rate of 2.9 children per woman would mean France is matching the rates for Paraguay, India, and Bhutan. The Population Reference Bureau's datasheet puts the Total Fertility Rate for France a full child lower, at an estimated 1.9 children per woman. Quite high for Europe, as the author mentions, but still below replacement level. Moreover, the plucky nation of Iceland (still considered European by most), edges out the French for the European lead, actually achieving a replacement level of 2.1 children expected per woman.

It's important to get these figures right! But nonetheless, thanks for an interesting post. As a researcher interested in family dynamics and fertility, I really appreciate the work done at Broadsheet. Cheers!

I vote yes too. The more we promote the wonders of bicycling, the better off we'll be. Will you also be taking part and blogging from the forthcoming World Naked Bike Ride Day (currently "scheduled" for June 9th up here in Vancouver)?

www.worldnakedbikeride.org

Cheers!