I am almost positive that the GP is referring to the suburbs of large economic centers. Generalizing rural America based on the life experience of someone living in Irvine, CA is completely off-the-mark.

In my second paragraph, I'm not even speaking about federal political power. The observation holds for municipal, county, and state-level political power - none of which have anything to do with the electoral college.

Those small towns and small cities--more the small towns than the small cities, but often those too--have those "reasonable middle class lifestyles" largely due to wealth transfers from bigger economic centers.

As a large city dweller for my entire adult life that does not bother me, but it isn't a sustainable process without those economic engines external to them.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. What wealth exactly is exported from urban centers to small towns and rural communities? Tax revenue? Ya likely that.

Otherwise I'd argue the reverse. Banking, media, software etc. seem to export wealth from smaller communities back to urban centers. In this regard large urban centers can be regarded something as absentee landlords receiving grapes and oil and Amish furniture and exporting spreadsheets and compliance audits.

Absentee landlords were issues, because they had actual ruling power over the land. Urban centers dont have decision power over rural areas.

Banking, media, and software extracts wealth just as efficiently from city-dwellers.

The difference is that city-dwellers are more economically productive (For various reasons, some of which are systemic), and, after paying for all those things, are left with a surplus at the end of the year.

Not to mention that the cost of supplying more mundane, necessary-for-life goods to rural areas is higher, due to higher distances, and the inefficiencies of serving low-density markets. This is another thing that keeps rural areas poor.

>receiving

Or rather purchasing?