Except "flyover" states are not just rural areas. There are tons of big cities in non-coastal areas of the US. I don't think people who use the term are maliciously doing it, but it does diminish the lives of millions of people as unimportant and inconsequential compared to the "important" areas on the coasts
> Except "flyover" states are not just rural areas
Not just, no. But, looking at population density by states, you've got roughly:
(1) the coastal states way at the top (except Alaska, Oregon, and Maine),
(2) non-coastal Mississippi River states, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona, and Vermont in the middle
(3) Everything else.
They are very different environments for things like passenger transport economics.
> There are tons of big cities in non-coastal areas of the US.
Define “big city”? There are three (out of 24 in the US) metropolitan areas with a population over 2.5 million where the principal city is located in a state without ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Great Lakes coast; 0 out of 9 of your cutoff is 5 million.
Well, yes. New Yorkers and Californians see the rest of the country as useless, and most don't bother to learn that entire cities exist outside of their coastal regions.
It's also part of the current hyperpoliticalization we're seeing.
