- The political upheavals of the past few years — from President Donald Trump’s election in the US to Brexit in the UK — have exposed a growing divide between the cities and rural areas in developed countries.
- Progressive parties were able to score wins in rural areas of the country, while the Conservative Party was able to pick up seats in major metros.
- There are a few reasons for this, including the large Indigenous population in Canada and regional quirks.
- The Canadian election is also a lesson not to apply broad macro trends to every country.
- George Pearkes is the global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
Across the developed world, there’s been a growing political divide between rural voters and urban voters. But this week we got evidence that one country may have bucked this trend, and it’s a cautionary lesson to not over-apply big global trends to every country.
That political upheaval comes in many forms: surprise voting results, the vague term “populism” referring to nontraditional left or right parties that were less popular in recent decades, or political protests. Often, the intensity of upheaval is a function of how rural or urban an area is.
In the UK, Brexit opposition is more concentrated in urban areas while support is higher in the countryside. “Gilets jaunes,” the growing economic movement also known as the “yellow vests,” got their start in the exurban areas outside of French cities. And in the US, 2018 saw a resurgent Democratic Party take a majority in the House thanks to huge gains in the suburbs that overcame staunch Republican support from rural areas.
But the federal election in Canada showed that the rural-urban divide is not universal and it can be foolish to try to apply global narratives on countries that have their own political quirks. While rural areas were more likely to swing Conservative thanks to huge gains in the Prairie provinces, and Liberals racked up urban wins, the country’s fault lines don’t cleanly break between progressive cities and a more conservative hinterland.
The rural-urban divide has reshaped politics
The series of political shocks that hit the developed world began with the Brexit referendum in 2016. Within England, one of the two nations in the UK to support Brexit, 53% voted to leave. The deepest support for remaining in the EU was found in central London, with 60% voting to remain in the EU. Other cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, and Oxford saw stronger concentrations of “remain” votes than the areas surrounding them.
Then in the fall, US President Donald Trump was elected, thanks mostly to a swing in three states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Voters in the Rust Belt and upper Midwest swung hard toward the GOP, and for those states the margins in rural areas of those states were too high for the more blue cities to overcome. Precinct-level maps help to show the degree of divide.
More recently, French protesters, angered by changes to taxes on diesel fuel, donned the yellow vests and took to traffic circles in towns outside of major cities. The protests grew into a broader political protest against French President Emmanuel Macron, who is often perceived as representing the urban elite.
But in Canada on Tuesday things looked different.
Canada has avoided the upheaval
There isn’t space for an exhaustive list (please, don’t tweet at me with the exceptions), but the divide between urban and rural voters in Canada this election looks much less stark than other countries.
In Quebec City, of the 10 ridings near the city, two went to Liberals, two went to generally progressive but regionally focused Bloc Quebecois, and the rest went Conservative. Rural Quebec split between Conservatives and Bloc, while Liberals won a few ridings. In Montreal, suburbs were Bloc and the central city was centrist Liberal.
Southern Ontario looks like a better candidate for rural-urban splits given the concentrated liberal strength around cities and broader Conservative wins in outlying areas. Even then, though, Liberals took a number of Northern Ontario ridings, as did the progressive New Democratic Party. There were also at least three Liberal pick-ups in rural ridings of Southern Ontario while Conservatives got three seats inside the Toronto suburbs.
Alberta has another good example: Conservatives won every riding in Canada’s third-largest city of Calgary, and all but one of the ridings around the other major urban center (Edmonton). Oil-pipeline politics turned out to be a far bigger factor in the Alberta vote than any urban-rural divide.
Finally, British Columbia, my home province. Conservatives took most of BC’s interior with the exception of one riding, won by the left-wing NDP; the NDP also did well in rural coastal areas with a number of wins. Liberals did well in Vancouver, but still lost four seats to the NDP and three seats to the Conservatives in the suburbs, while Conservatives cleaned up in the farmland of the southeast lower mainland.
Across the country, the divide between rural and urban voters looked nothing like that of the US. While it’s not invisible, there are lots of exceptions which make the Canadian rural-urban gap less stark than what we see in many developed countries.
Canada’s Indigenous population are rural progressives
The question is, why? What is Canada doing to avoid its own rural-urban split?
One immediate answer is the voting patterns of Indigenous peoples, who make up 5% of the country’s population. Headed into the election, the Assembly of First Nations cited a record number of Indigenous candidates, with potential for Indigenous candidates to swing one in five ridings. Strong turnout in 2015 helped Trudeau win that election.
In many rural areas, Indigenous Canadians are key voting blocs, and they tend to avoid the political right. An IRPP analysis showed five ridings with populations that are majority Indigenous and another 12 that were 20 to 50% Indigenous. Conservatives lost in four of the five majority Indigenous ridings and lost five of the 12 20% to 50% Indigenous ridings. Notably, six of those seven wins came in the Prairies.
Among the 33 ridings that are 10 to 20% Indigenous, Conservatives won 18, but again they were dependent on the Prairies with 12 of their wins coming from those provinces.
None of this argues that Indigenous voters assure Conservative losses, but in many ridings they give non-right parties a chance or a big victory, breaking up the consistency of the urban-rural political divide.
Canada’s regional differences bridge the rural-urban divide
Obviously the indigenous vote doesn’t totally explain Canada’s ability to avoid the urban-rural political split. Regionalism plays a role too.
The Bloc Quebecois — who have traditionally advocated for Quebec’s independence — are active only in their home territory, but in that province they can be popular in both the rural and the urban areas.
For instance, Jonquière or Lac-Saint-Jean are rural ridings where the Conservatives couldn’t get into second place, while they did manage outright wins in some ridings around Quebec City. The cultural environment of Quebec clearly doesn’t support a clean split along urban-rural ideological fault lines.
In Alberta, oil-and-gas politics played a huge role in voters’ decisions this time around. Calgary saw all of its 10 higher-density ridings vote Conservative as the petroleum-oriented Albertan economy tried to give Conservative leader Andrew Scheer a mandate to build pipelines. That was a more powerful dynamic than any urban versus rural progressive-conservative divide.
Finally, while outlying areas of the British Columbia interior sided with Conservatives’ economic message, relatively progressive ridings like South Okanagan-West Kootenay, Cowichan-Malahat-Langford, or Courtenay-Alberni are all rural and sent back NDP candidates, part of a long tradition of relatively left-wing politics in the province.
Canadian election returns show the limits of top-down analysis of big, macro trends when airdropping into countries for short periods. Political tradition, demographics, and institutional history can all be more important than the impulses of the global economy and political narrative.
Analyses that spend too much time focused on a comfortable narrative that can be reapplied, instead of adding local context, are likely to lead analysts and investors astray.
George Pearkes is the global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group. He covers markets and economies around the world and across assets, relying on economic data and models, policy analysis, and behavioral factors to guide asset allocation, idea generation, and analytical background for individual investors and large institutions.
Tyson Fury’s promoter says an Anthony Joshua fight should be in the UK or USA, not Saudi Arabia
Tyson Fury fights Deontay Wilder at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas on Saturday, February 22.Should he win, and overcome Wilder in an anticipated trilogy bout later in the year, then there would be pressure to fight the WBA, WBO, and IBF heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua in a battle of Britain mega-bout.Joshua’s promoter,…
- Tyson Fury fights Deontay Wilder at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas on Saturday, February 22.
- Should he win, and overcome Wilder in an anticipated trilogy bout later in the year, then there would be pressure to fight the WBA, WBO, and IBF heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua in a battle of Britain mega-bout.
- Joshua’s promoter, Eddie Hearn, previously told iFL TV that the money to host such a fight in Saudi Arabia is difficult to turn down. Business Insider previously reported Joshua made $85 million when he beat Andy Ruiz Jr. in his anticipated rematch in Diriyah, last December.
- But Fury’s promoter, Bob Arum, told Business Insider this week that regular fights in Saudi Arabia “kills the sport” and that promoters owe it to fans in established boxing markets like the USA or UK to put the fight there, instead.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
LAS VEGAS — A battle of Britain mega-fight between Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua should take place in the UK or USA rather than Saudi Arabia, Fury’s promoter Bob Arum told Business Insider this week.
Putting regular fights in Saudi Arabia “kills the sport,” Arum said.
Fury, meanwhile, puts his unbeaten record on the line when he challenges for Deontay Wilder’s WBC championship belt on Saturday at the MGM Grand Garden Arena.
But that is not all.
Should Fury come out on top in his three-fight rivalry with Wilder, having drawn with the heavy-hitting American in 2018, then there would be pressure to meet his British rival Joshua so all four of the heavyweight championships would be on the line in a winner-take-all super showdown.
It is a bout Joshua’s promoter Eddie Hearn recently said could take place in Saudi Arabia, according to iFL TV. Hearn said he was planning to put “three or four” shows in Saudi Arabia in 2020, and a Joshua vs. Fury fight could command $200 million paydays for the fighters.
But speaking to Business Insider, Arum said the fight should not happen in Saudi Arabia because it would do a disservice to boxing fans in established markets. Putting the political situation to one side — a political situation which Business Insider previously reported as “sportswashing” — the bout should take place in a UK or USA city, Arum said.
“If we care about this sport and want to see it grow then the fight should take place either in the United States or in the UK,” Arum said. “We owe it to our fans to do that.”
Hearn held the rematch between Andy Ruiz Jr. and Joshua in Diriyah, December 2019. The bout was the second fight of the year between the two athletes, after Joshua was humiliatingly beaten by Ruiz Jr. in New York City earlier in the summer — one of the greatest upsets heavyweight boxing had ever seen. But his victory in Diriyah saw him collect a career-high check of $85 million, according to a previous Business Insider report.
“I don’t mind and I don’t fault Eddie for going to Saudi Arabia with the Joshua v Ruiz fight,” Arum said. “[He] made a good buck, that was okay, but you can’t keep doing it or you’re going to kill the sport.
“And it’s not political,” Arum added. “We’re putting politics aside. We’re just talking as a promoter who wants to appeal to the most boxing fans.”
Super Tuesday made it crystal clear: Joe Biden is the Democrats’ best option to beat Trump
Joe Biden surged back on Super Tuesday and dominated in a slew of states.The electorate that turned out to vote for Biden is the coalition Democrats need to win over to capture the general election.So it is now clear that Biden is the best bet to beat President Trump.Michael Gordon is a longtime Democratic strategist,…
- Joe Biden surged back on Super Tuesday and dominated in a slew of states.
- The electorate that turned out to vote for Biden is the coalition Democrats need to win over to capture the general election.
- So it is now clear that Biden is the best bet to beat President Trump.
- Michael Gordon is a longtime Democratic strategist, a former spokesperson for the Justice Department, and the principal for the strategic-communications firm Group Gordon.
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
After a huge Super Tuesday, it is becoming apparent that former Vice President Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. Sen. Bernie Sanders will continue to earn votes and gain delegates, but the voters have spoken with perceptible vibration: Biden is the one who can defeat Trump, and he will.
Sanders bid to bring in a swath of new voters to the primary has fallen flat, while Biden has been able to build a diverse coalition of Democrats that can carry him to the nomination and beyond.
The pattern held for Biden in stirring fashion on Super Tuesday. Case in point: Biden got a huge boost in suburban areas of states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Minnesota that helped secure his big night. Not coincidentally it was also the suburbs that delivered the historic 2018 midterm win for Democrats.
The winning coalition
There are moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats who are anxious for a change in the White House, but they would rather skip the Presidential ballot line than vote for Bernie Sanders. They are not interested in the finer points of Fidel Castro’s reign, and Sanders’ doubling down on Castro is confusing but also stubborn. Many of these voters live in suburbs. They swing from election to election and these days just need a slight nudge to go blue.
In addition, African Americans are coming out in force for Biden. Had Hillary Clinton motivated Black voters to come out enthusiastically in 2016, she would be our President. Biden has their support in the primaries, and it will translate to the general, despite Trump’s best efforts.
Biden has the core of the coalition that elected Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and moved the Congress in 2006 and 2018. To make sure he beats Trump, he has to get the young, college-educated, and white liberal supporters of Sanders. Biden has the baseline no one else has but needs to embrace the Sanders wing as much as possible to deliver the knockout blow.
An uncontested convention
Biden needs to speak to the issues that motivate Sanders supporters and be careful not to critique them or their candidate. But the good news is that Donald Trump has done something that no one in the Democratic Party could do: put everyone’s eyes on the ultimate prize.
That’s why former rivals Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar endorsed before Super Tuesday, not after. That’s why Michael Bloomberg got out the moment he wasn’t viable. And that’s why we should not have a contested convention. As the primary season progresses and Biden continues to consolidate, Bernie Sanders should see the writing on the wall.
Unlike Hillary Clinton in 2008 and Sanders himself in 2016, I believe Sanders will get out as soon as Biden becomes inevitable and will support Biden enthusiastically, as will his supporters – because no one wants to live through Nixon on steroids for another four years.
Biden’s coalition that began to form in South Carolina expanded dramatically on Super Tuesday. And it will carry him to the White House a little less than eight months from today.
Michael Gordon has a long history in Democratic politics and communications strategy. He worked in the Clinton White House and as a spokesperson for the Clinton Justice Department. He also has served on multiple national, state, and local campaigns.
Chuck Schumer blasting conservative Supreme Court justices is more proof that Democrats are trying, and failing, to copy Trump’s bluster
When Chuck Schumer said Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh “won’t know what hit” them this week, he was channeling Trump’s schoolyard-bully persona.In play-acting like Trump, Schumer launched yet another partisan “civility” conversation but buried his real message in noise.”If you can’t beat Trump, act like Trump” has become a political maxim of…
- When Chuck Schumer said Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh “won’t know what hit” them this week, he was channeling Trump’s schoolyard-bully persona.
- In play-acting like Trump, Schumer launched yet another partisan “civility” conversation but buried his real message in noise.
- “If you can’t beat Trump, act like Trump” has become a political maxim of our time. But only Trump is Trump, and his critics undermine themselves when they try to ape his “tough guy” act.
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
Whenever the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library opens, it ought to have at least an exhibit immortalizing his sickest burns. Call him a schoolyard bully if you want. It won’t matter. He knows who he is, and he’ll hit you first and dirty.
But it’s not easy to pretend to be a bully. You either have the instinct or you don’t. Trump’s the real deal. And perhaps his greatest trick since entering political life has been to coax his political enemies into acting as juvenile and boorish as he is.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer provided the latest example this week when speaking at a Center for Reproductive Rights rally, where he addressed two Supreme Court justices by name with what can only be reasonably interpreted as a threat.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Does anyone truly believe that Schumer “has brought great danger to the steps of the United States Supreme Court,” as Trump put it in a tweet? Unlikely.
But it was a wildly inappropriate and bizarre display of tough-guy posturing, and Chief Justice John Roberts was completely correct to issue a rare public rebuke of the minority leader, saying: “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”
Schumer didn’t do himself any favors with the mealymouthed statement put out by his office, which accused Roberts of following “the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said.”
OK, then: So what was the correct interpretation?
According to Schumer’s office, he was referencing “the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.”
That’s patently ridiculous. Schumer didn’t say Senate Republicans “won’t know what hit them.” The grammar makes it clear the “you” was in reference to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
But the whole sadly comical episode is indicative of how Trump has influenced so many political figures into acting like him through pro-wrestling-style insults, childish tweets, and theatrical attempts at viral moments.
‘If you can’t beat Trump, act like Trump’ has become a political maxim
Trump’s been known for his brash, plain-spoken style since he became a national figure following the publication of his bestselling ghostwritten book, “The Art of the Deal.”
Later, as his business fortunes crumbled, he was forced to rebrand as a somewhat self-deprecating TV commercial pitchman to maintain relevance. Then, Mark Burnett cast him in the fictitious reality-TV role of a competent businessman in “The Apprentice,” where Trump really started to lean into the role of indomitable heel.
But it wasn’t until Trump joined Twitter in May 2009 that he unleashed his true id.
With a completely unfiltered bullhorn of global reach, he was free to spread fake conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama’s birthplace, level gross insults on female celebrities’ appearances, and make easily debunkable boasts about his own accomplishments.
Almost a decade to the day later, a lot of lawmakers have calibrated a “be like Trump” approach to fighting Trump.
During a desperate last-gasp attempt at survival in the 2016 Republican primary, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida fought back against Trump’s “Little Marco” insults by saying Trump has small hands, adding, “And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”
Rubio may have thought he landed a direct hit, but Trump’s got no shame, and was quite happy to play in the gutter. At a debate days after Rubio’s insult, Trump addressed the audience: “He referred to my hands — ‘if they’re small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, widely considered one of the most patient and effective political tacticians in congressional history, has never quite sunk into Trump-level vulgarity or made intimation toward violence, but that doesn’t mean she’s above fighting Trump with a petty stunt.
The speaker grabbed headlines in February when she tore up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union address moments after the speech concluded. This came after Trump pointedly snubbed her attempt at a handshake before the address. Pelosi said afterward that “it was the courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.”
And, more recent, the vanquished 2020 candidate, billionaire, and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, responded in February to Trump’s “Mini Mike” insult with a tweet reading simply: “Impeached president says what?”
Bloomberg’s social-media team also used the @Mike2020 account to “satirically” go after Bernie Sanders following his comments in support of deceased Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, though they were forced to delete the thread after at least one of them was widely reviled as homophobic.
Trump didn’t make politics uncivil, but he’s helped make it even less dignified
US politics has never been civil.
Take the presidential campaign of 1800, when Thomas Jefferson reportedly hired a journalist to describe his opponent, John Adams, as “a hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, not the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”
Trump would never apply such literacy to his barbs, which has worked well for him.
Rubio’s double entendre about Trump’s hands didn’t work because it was a one-off and rang false. He’s still young enough to be part of the GOP’s future, and if he ever gets comfortable enough in his own skin not to come off like a robot, maybe an authentic version of himself could be compelling to the national electorate.
Pelosi’s not a naturally theatrical showboater; she’s the ultimate poker player. Ripping up the State of the Union speech isn’t much of a bluff. It’s going on tilt. In the past three years, she’s shown an ability to ingratiate herself to Trump and score some political victories off him, but she did it by playing cool.
Bloomberg ran for president on his reputation as a technocratic CEO who ran New York with the same kind of humorless efficiency that made him his fortune. Yet he couldn’t hire people to effectively cut Trump to pieces on Twitter, and became the source of online ridicule himself.
That’s the whole point: Trump is Trump. His enemies are not.
Chuck Schumer’s threat — and it was a threat, however empty — to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh has ginned up the predictable partisan outrage, but it was an inauthentic attempt to out-Trump Trump.
As a communicator, Trump can be a shameless and vulgar thug. But unlike his opponents trying to ape his style, it’s rightfully perceived as authentic.
Schumer’s clearly passionate about reproductive rights and wants to make an upcoming Supreme Court decision into an issue that resonates with voters. But in play-acting like Trump, he launched yet another partisan “civility” conversation, and buried his real message in noise.
- Read more:
- The authors of a new Trump-world book ‘Sinking in the Swamp’ discuss the ‘stupidity’ of the current political era
- Mike Bloomberg and Donald Trump’s shared love of executive power makes them strongman soulmates
- CPAC 2020 was all about worshiping Trump, hating socialism, and feeling victimized by media and the left
- ‘The anti-Greta’ climate activist Naomi Seibt says she’s ‘absolutely’ a fan of far-right podcaster Stefan Molyneux