What factors account for the Republicans election failures in urbanized areas?

Question

It seem that in most urbanized areas in recent years (2000 - present) Democrats win more elections on average than Republicans. According to debt.org:

if an area has more than 500,000 people, it will go Democrat about 60 percent of the time. The political balance is even in areas with 50,000 to 500,000 people, and then turns decidedly in the Republicans’ favor at population levels below 50,000.

According to this website areas with higher population density tend to vote democrat,

At about 800 people per square mile, people switch from voting primarily Republican to voting primarily Democratic. Put another way, below 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Republican. Above 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Democrat. A 66% preference is a clear, dominant majority.

During the 2012 elections, this happened:

Of the 15 largest U.S. cities, 11 went for Obama this past November. Not just the big, traditionally blue cities of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast, but a number of fast-growing Sun Belt cities as well.

Additionally, the GOP themselves recognize their problem with urbanized areas.

• What factors have inhibited Republican success in these areas?

• What factors account for the Democrats success in these areas?

Answer 1

It's an indirect correlation. It's not that urban areas favor democrats but rather those that live in urban areas tend to either fit into and/or associate more with the demographics that do tend to favor democrats at a higher density than in the rural areas.

• non-white
• union members
• younger
• college educated professionals
• higher diversity of religious beliefs

Bottom line, it's not necessarily a 'failure of republicans' as much as it is that cities tend to have liberal demographics and rural areas tend to have conservative demographics.

As an aside, exurban areas tend to trend republican.

Answer 2

Rural/urban differences are common in politics. They have been observed between countries (like between developed nations and advanced industrial ones) as well as within countries (rural America vs. urban America).

Here are a few generalizations. It's Christmas Eve here, but I will edit this with citations from political science journals after the holiday.:

1. Democrats support social services and welfare programs, which appeal to the urban poor.

2. Most well-educated people live in urban environments. Democrat's policies support the expansion of higher education, funding for students, and the middle class lifestyle these people expect. In rural districts, there are likely no universities and very few jobs which require that kind of education.

3. Living in an urban environment forces multiple ethnicity, religions, etc. to co-exist. Rural living is much more homogenous. Democrats are successful in urban districts because their policies accept a variety different social groups (GLBT rights, pathways to citizenship for immigrants, etc.). Republicans are successful in rural districts because their social policies empower the dominant group in their district (strict immigration and national defense policy, English-only education, traditional marriage, etc.).

There are historical reasons for much of this, but it's generalizable to other countries as well. Liberal platforms perform will in urban environments, while conservative platforms are well-suited for rural ones. What exactly constitutes liberal or conservative in a particular area will vary.