Have progressives largely abandoned the concerns of rural Americans?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Both parties have largely abandoned rural areas.  Republicans pay lip service to rural areas while contributing heavily to the depopulation of rural areas by policies that suppress wages and outsource rural jobs to other countries.  

I'm one of few posters here who actually has lived most of his life and still lives in a rural area.  But I'm not the best example because my area is different than much of the country.  While many see the GOP as being right on many social issues like abortion and gun control, most people here would say easily that the DFL is more engaged with rural Minnesotans and cares more about rural issues.

In fact, the coalitions that have coalesced in recent decades in Minnesota have been a coalition of progressive liberals from the inner city and inner suburbs, coupled with rural DFLers from northern Minnesota and the Minnesota River valley, and increasingly in southeastern Minnesota.... against suburban/exurban Republicans which also couple with traditionally conservative catholic German areas of the state.

So when the GOP spends 8 years slashing local government aid, which helps keep property taxes reasonable in rural areas, forcing property taxes to treble.. rural Minnesotans respond.

Where rural Minnesotans have a strong connection with the DFL are on those issues:  Local government aid to make good local government affordable in poorer, smaller "outstate" communities.  Funding for rural education so rural districts can attract teachers with good pay.  Funding for higher education, especially in the MnSCU system whose campuses are largely in the smaller cities in the state, and funding of healthcare for the poor with extra funding for seniors in rural areas who have no access to decent nursing facilities but can live at home with the help of home health aides.

When the DFLers bring up the issue of transportation... they not only bring up increasing transit taxes in the Twin Cities metro to build out transit systems there, they also talk about strengthening rural transit options like dial-a-ride services and rural bus service and medical transportation for disabled people.  They talk about a network of hiking and biking trails that connect communities... and they talk about increasing funding for rural roads and highways.

They also talk about efficiency standards as the best way to reduce pollution and emissions from rural folks who must drive longer distances to get form place to place.

And most importantly:  DFLers are well aware of the fact that rural communities don't want to die out.  They want stability.. and maybe even growth if it's possible.  DFLers promote programs for small business owners... promote higher corporate and income taxes so property taxes, which negatively impact rural businesses (and homes), can be low.  They support initiatives to start the school year later so the tourism industry, which thrives in rural MN, can rely on being full for Labor Day weekend.

The GOP has platitudes.  They mostly talk about "reducing regulations" so farmers have more "freedom" and banning gay marriage and abortion and allowing unfettered access to guns (this last one is also supported by rural DFLers).  And when the GOP has the say... rural communities see skyrocketing property taxes, schools that have to ask voters for tax increases to pay for teachers and school buses... and an attitude that basically says "well, if you can't hack it.. then move to the city (preferably the suburbs)"...

So yes... Democrats and progressives care about rural areas, rural issues, and rural people... in Minnesota.

Nationally?  They don't give two sh**ts.  

[Ban my account ffs!]

the bolded parts blatantly contradict each other.  Unless, of course, you meant white working-class voters. Lots of people make such a mistake/conflation, but it's actually really harmful, and I'd expect better from you.

I tend to twitch horribly and uncontrollably when that particular combination of words is used, because I've found that whenever they appear a terminally stupid argument is never far away (often one that also decides to assume that all such people are male). So I'd rather communicate less than clearly, than write that phrase out myself...

The problem is that doing so has the rather unfortunate side effect of basically just erasing rural minorities from the conversation entirely.  I sympathize with your aversion, but honestly I think that using "working class" as a synecdoche for "white working class" is pretty much just the worst possible option here.

And white working class connotes southern white male Republicans... aka "the American people" that idiots like Cruz and Boehner are always talking about.

How about "rural people"?  That's nice and broad.  Rural poors?  I mean... working class is actually a British term, not so much an American one.