I'm not cynical about Harris in particular, but really about the Democratic Party and American politics in general. Do I think Bel Edwards would be better than Harris in answering the needs of rural Americans? Maybe, I really can't say for certain. I will say that I am slightly more confident in his ability than Harris' due to his background and the state that he governs being largely rural and one of the poorest in the nation. What sort of experience does Harris have that is equivalent to that?
But the fact remains that rural America continues to crumble and not a thing is being done about it. There needs to be serious changes in the system, and I doubt that Harris has the political clout or platform to do. I don't blame Harris for not having a political career laser focused on the plight of the rural poor, it's not her problem. And that's why I would prefer to elect someone with a more class based background and platform, who is experience in dealing with rural issues.
Single payer sounds real nice, and I am willing to give Harris the benefit of the doubt, but she has yet to prove to me that she is anything more than an over hyped Democratic Rubio so far.
I very much agree with this. The "just move" argument is not only terrible and out of touch, but also makes 0 sense. If an area is failing economically, we should work to make it more successful, not abandon it to nature. It seems like Blairite wants to completely abandon rural areas and pack cities with a population too big for them to handle and it can't be justified.
I for one strongly support massive urbanization (as it's more environmentally and economically sustainable). That said, even I know that what Blarite said is stupid, since as of today what you said (in bold) is correct. Our cities are already bursting at the seams already with ridiculous housing costs and poor public transportation, and many rural people who
want to move to urban areas can't because of those reasons.
Which brings me to White Trash's perception that previous presidents have ignored rural areas and only focused on urban areas. I find that wrong; the federal government has done a
very poor job of investing in our urban areas. As much as our cities are now the "hot" places to be in right now, many still suffer from urban decay, poverty, public transportation worse than most developing countries' systems, etc. There is a growing contingent of socially liberal "yuppies" who have some political clout, but by and large our urban cores are just as neglected as our rural areas.
Will Kamala Harris change any of this? Hopefully yes, but realistically no. I'll still support her, though, just like a lot of people I know. (She's a lot more popular with my IRL friends than with Atlas, apparently. Probably has to do with the fact that my friend groups are pretty racially diverse while Atlas is whiter than Alabama.)
