>

Some of the most strong Liberal Party of Canada voting blocks are in rural ridings in Atlantic Canada.
You confused me with 'liberal' in the title, and 'conservative' in the text. Surely even in the US, liberal & conservative are not the same? >

Not op, but maybe it's an ESL situation.
From a strict, classical sense, liberal and conservative aren't opposed, Pprogressive and conservative are. The opposite (again in a classical sense) of liberal is authoritarian. Most of the conservative US started using liberal as a pejorative in the late 60s during the cou ter culture revolution, since it was college-age driven with liberal arts educations. ironically since in that sense it means something along to "holistic, well rounded " education, as opposed to a trade school that teaches one specific topic. >

This is a very good point! And it needs to be reinforced.
The traditional, mainstream ideology in the US is Liberalism. True conservatives are people who want a more conservative form of Liberalism, while progessives want a more progressive form of Liberalism.
People who advocate authoritarianism, or theocracy, or racism or sexism are not conservatives. They are radicals who are opposed to liberalism.
People who advocate communism, or radical redistribution of wealth, or abolishment of private property are not progressives. They are radicals who are opposed to liberalism.
Actual left-wing radicals are very rare in the US. Rightwing radicals number in the tens of millions. >

The only people trying to reinforce this point in the U.S. are Progressives and people trying to find a new word for 'liberal' so they can feel special and differentiate themselves from the rest of the left.  You often seen the term 'leftist' used as well.  It all means the same shit.  In American politics when someone is informally using the term 'liberal' they are generally not referencing classical liberalism.  Otherwise they would specifically reference 'classical liberalism.'
Progressives often try to confuse the language to push an agenda, and if you are making that point and you refuse to identify which liberalism you are referencing then it loses all meaning.
Progressivism is a branch of that big tent Liberalism, if you read early writings they talk about 'progressive liberalism' and 'old liberalism' and 'new liberalism.'  'New' liberalism being progressivism.
Radical just means you want change rapidly, conservatives and liberals are not necessarily radicals both can be, any group can.  Reactionaries are people who want a return to the status quo. >

Usually the exceptions are very very wealthy urban areas (Orange County, CA) >

I read an article recently about how Orange County has become strongly Democratic over the last couple of election cycles though. It's part of a broader trend of "Los Angelesization" of southern California. >

They vote for democrats but a lot of them are pretty dang conservative >

South Korea is somewhat like that. In the most recent presidential election, the urban center of Seoul voted conservative while the suburbs and exurbs voted center-left. Not a perfect example as rural areas also voted conservative. >

That's why Korean liberals are not really liberals in american sense. When their Supreme Court ruled abortion ban unconstitutional, they had presidency and supermajority to overcome filibuster. Well, they had it for about one and half year, and they literally didn't pass the legalization, lol. So, the abortion is in limbo situation where the liberals still have supermajority, and they're not willing to pass it.
Until few years ago, they're not left in economic sense nor liberal in social stance. their left and right divided over military dictatorship.
The bottom left part of korea which heavily voted for liberals (by 90%). They're the most religious part in the country and socially conservative, along with the bottom right (the upper one especially) that voted for conservatives - making it hard for the liberals to move left. >

Assuming you meant rural is liberal/progressive and urban is conservative, the best example in the US is Alaska. A lot of the really rural areas are mostly native americans and a lot of the people in cities are working in industries like resource extraction and commercial fishing >

This question isn't applicable to most western democracies.  The liberal/progressive split is a special partisanship used the the US.  Almost everywhere else has the traditional left/right split with primary political difference being taxation and welfare policies.
That means the split is almost always poor communities vs wealthy communities.  So you have rich urban businessmen and rural farmers on the right, and poor rural and urban workers on the left.
It actually takes a huge amount of effort in the US to not have the traditional left as a viable political option, and instead create a liberal/progressive split based on social values rather than  economic need. >

This. The way the question is framed implies some degree of universalism to US political metrics and this is far from being the case. Progressive and Conservative, like right v. left, authoritarian v. libertarian need to be understood as period and place specific. >

Woody Gurthie is America’s most beloved socialist.
This Land Is Your Land has two versions and one has a bit of anti capitalism in it. Though I suspect it’s more about the consolidation of land ownership and the loss of freedom that comes with from the end of the frontier farm era.
“ There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;” >

The Mexican revolution, and in particular the Zapatista  factions come to mind after reading the prompt. 
The rebels were generally fighting for land reform: break up the large established ranches who owned all the regions resources. Distribute enough land to live off of to the villages. That certainly feels like rural/liberals to me. 
On the conservative edge, at least at first were the remains of the old Porfirio Díaz regime, and the various military dictators who followed it. 
(That’s my interpretation of the Mexican revolution, as an amateur American who’s done some light research on it for fun. The Mexican revolution is very, very complicated) >

This is anecdotal, but my co worker from northern Japan says people tend to be way more left leaning because they got fucked over by the LDP really hard after the tsunami and fukushima. >

Alaska - rural areas tend to be blue and urban areas tend to be red. Alaska's politics in general are a bit different than the rest of the country, but it's about as close as you can get.
Also, down south you have Mississippi and Alabama with blue rural counties thanks to rural black communities. >

Interesting. What made rural areas blue in Alaska? >

My guess is Inuit populations are the main people who live in rural Alaska and they skew Democrat. >

A place like Vietnam comes to mind but that may be out of sheer ignorance on my part. >

We have the same thoughts. >

Sweden. Like others have mentioned, the semantics of “liberalism” and “conservatism” don’t map on to other countries all that accurately, but I would consider Sweden to fit this description. 
Social Democrats dominate in the rural areas while the Sweden Democrats (a national conservative party) find their strongest support in urban areas. >

India is one of those cases. The BJP (the conservative Hindu nationalist party) wins big in urban constituencies, whereas the main opposition, the Indian National Congress (the centre-left secular party) tends to do better in rural and tribal areas. >

That's kinda the case only because India has a sizeable Islamic community and the people who are naturally influenced by Western liberalism would be opposed to everything islam stands for and so would gravitate to the BJP. >

You’d think that, but no, it’s the opposite. BJP’s religious nationalism is xenophobic to most minorities including Muslims and Christians, so most minorities as well as liberals (who are opposed to the xenophobia that Hindu Nationalism brings) vote for the opposition, not for the BJP. >

In the U.S., it was precisely like that from the Gilded Age (mid-1870s) through post-WWII (late-1940s/early-1950s).
The ideological and partisan divides were, by and large, based on class, not superficial identity, with people's material concerns being most tangible.
In the meantime, the current demographic schisms in the U.S. are, point blank, fucking idiotic. >

The broad strokes tendency is that places were being a farmer means having a small holding that you own and work with your family tend to be conservative whereas places where farming means working for a landlord tend to have fairly lefty politics.
As I said over in that other thread the US is fairly unique in that we did an extremely thorough genocide on the native population and then let basically anyone (anyone who was a white guy anyway) have some of that free land. This created a situation where the standard arrangement was the family farm model and so rural America tends to be conservative.  One exception to this was sharecroppers in the south and there actually was a fairly significant (by US standards) level of communist organization among black sharecroppers in the 1930s. >

I have not seen an instance of this happening and if it exists, it is extremely rare.  Liberal politicians have been keeping urban populations captive for years.  They take advantage of the fact that people with less means are much more likely to feel they have few other ways than to depend on government assistance.  For those who want to stay in power their strategy is quite brilliant.  The more people who feel they have few other means to survive, the more people are beholden to them. This is the reason you don’t see a lot of conservatives in urban poor areas. >

I live in rural north Texas here its because of what they vote for,we have lots of area and on most you cant drive 10 miles without seeing a oil well site. Republicans and conservatives, like big oil. Thats why this rural area suports concervatives.