It's a valid debate whether or not to "pursue" Romney-Clinton or Obama-Trump voters LONGTERM. However, it's not valid to equate "rural whites" with "Obama-Trump," as many Clinton supporters and the gal tweeting did. No Democrat literally anywhere is suggesting becoming the party of rural Whites (to the extent that has any meaning), and no Democrat is suggesting chasing after literal conservatives. The very small minority of "WWC" voters who DID vote for Obama aren't usually the types saying shlt like that or holding extreme social positions. This forum acts like Obama-Trump voters are more conservative than Romney-Trump voters, LOL.
Alright, I feel that I should make a response.
First of all, the evidence presented by the Twitter thread is rather fraudulent and poor as:
A. The area visited was not ancestrally Democratic, but ancestrally Republican
B. This wasnt really a scientific study
C. The writer in question was clearly biased
I dont get why we are even looking at stuff like this. We just had an election, we have proof, and, TBH, it kinda goes both ways.
Some Rurals did trend R, most notably in OH, IN, and ND. But some rurals did trend D, even after accounting for the wave. The Rurals of Western MT, of IA, and of ME went the other way.
I should also note that there was a large correlation between the type of WC area, and how it trended. In general, as there was some exceptions, WC rurals trended R, with the exceptions being in ME, PA, and in NY. WC areas that had a suburb, or declining city, think Duluth, Erie, or Kenshoa, these areas trended D.
It should also be noted that WWC /=/ Rural area. The two are not synonymous. Losing NE-03 isnt a loss of WWC voters.
What Im trying to get at is that blanket statements like the ones made dont reflect the nuances of politics, that WOW wont vote like the Boston suburbs, or that MT wont vote the same way as IA.
Finally some good posts in this cesspit of a thread.
