Will Democrats ever do well in rural America again?

[Zaybay]

Lol “personality”. Rural areas are voting republican because of anger at a changing America. Candidate personality won’t mean jack sh**t in swaying them unless their personality explicitly appeals to this anger.

Famous Mortimer is at least honest about this.

yeah, of course. The Dems have no chance in rural districts due to this, its not like we have good chances in WV, ME, MT, WI, KS, KY, MN, etc.

The idea that rurals are just racist is overplayed and just isnt true. They are a bit racist, yes, but so are the  GOP suburbs, and probably to a greater extent. The rurals are socially conservative, and economically left

This level of naïveté isn’t even cute anymore. It’s just a pathetic narrative socialists and Sanders supporters like to tell themselves.

True ... doesn't make your hyperbole exactly right, either.

Timmy's hyperbole is the best hyperbole.  And he's right.  Rural people are not economically left wing.  They have a mish-mash of views in aggregate that basically translate to openness to social programs and worker protections but recently their distrust of government has overshadowed that.

On social issues they also have a mish-mash of views.  Some might be racist but have no problem with teh gheys.  Others might not be racist but are viciously homophobic.  A great many are "live and let live".  It all boils down to a distrust of media/pop culture/government because they feel they are being told how to think and live by a smug, self righteous "establishment".

In other words... it's reactionary.

I have never suggested that rural people are economically left (many in the Great Plains are more economically right than the fabled *educated suburban voter*, for example), and I think YOUR description of rural voters is fair.  I think Timmy's was - most likely on purpose - an exaggeration and overly harsh.

I mean, it depends on which type of rural voter we are talking about. If its all rural voters, then it is a mishmash of views. If it is a rural plains voters, then its economically right-wing views. The ones from the Rust-Belt and Appalachia, however, do hold left views on the economy, from just unionization to full on nationalization. This was apparent in most exit polling, and also makes sense for the region, being a used-to-be industrialized area that voted with the Ds until very recently.

Ds in the plains actually do hold rather very left wing views, which can be seen in their voting habits in 2008 and 2016 primaries, which is surprising, but I guess it makes sense. In such a one-party state like HI or WY, who would want to be in the losing party? Not the moderates, only the ones on the end of the spectrum.

[Calthrina950]

I'm bumping this back up again, because I think that the recent election has given us insight into where we are headed. It appears that Democrats are on track to do even worse in rural areas going forward. By 2050, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat is winning a national election with fewer counties than George McGovern.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I'm bumping this back up again, because I think that the recent election has given us insight into where we are headed. It appears that Democrats are on track to do even worse in rural areas going forward. By 2050, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat is winning a national election with fewer counties than George McGovern.

It also showed the roadmap to the future irrelevancy of rural areas as far as the political landscape goes. They obviously aren't totally irrelevant yet, but their salience is unmistakenly on the decline, especially outside of the Senate.

[RINO Tom]

I'm bumping this back up again, because I think that the recent election has given us insight into where we are headed. It appears that Democrats are on track to do even worse in rural areas going forward. By 2050, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat is winning a national election with fewer counties than George McGovern.

It also showed the roadmap to the future irrelevancy of rural areas as far as the political landscape goes. They obviously aren't totally irrelevant yet, but their salience is unmistakenly on the decline, especially outside of the Senate.

In anything but the House (which is still significant, obviously), yes, they are irrelevant.  The misconception is that Republican candidates are only winning rural voters.  For literally 30-40 years, there haven't been enough rural voters to win anything in all but two or three states.

[IceSpear]

I'm bumping this back up again, because I think that the recent election has given us insight into where we are headed. It appears that Democrats are on track to do even worse in rural areas going forward. By 2050, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat is winning a national election with fewer counties than George McGovern.

It also showed the roadmap to the future irrelevancy of rural areas as far as the political landscape goes. They obviously aren't totally irrelevant yet, but their salience is unmistakenly on the decline, especially outside of the Senate.

In anything but the House (which is still significant, obviously), yes, they are irrelevant.  The misconception is that Republican candidates are only winning rural voters.  For literally 30-40 years, there haven't been enough rural voters to win anything in all but two or three states.

No, but if it wasn't for the Racist Hicks, your party would be an irrelevant rump and a permanent minority.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm bumping this back up again, because I think that the recent election has given us insight into where we are headed. It appears that Democrats are on track to do even worse in rural areas going forward. By 2050, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat is winning a national election with fewer counties than George McGovern.

It also showed the roadmap to the future irrelevancy of rural areas as far as the political landscape goes. They obviously aren't totally irrelevant yet, but their salience is unmistakenly on the decline, especially outside of the Senate.

In anything but the House (which is still significant, obviously), yes, they are irrelevant.  The misconception is that Republican candidates are only winning rural voters.  For literally 30-40 years, there haven't been enough rural voters to win anything in all but two or three states.

No, but if it wasn't for the Racist Hicks, your party would be an irrelevant rump and a permanent minority.

Nope as after 8 years of total Dem Progressive Rule our nation would be in bad shape so Conservative Republicans would win again and fix the nation just like they did in the 1980s

[Chinggis]

if the democratic party wants to do well in rural areas they should read more about Paul Wellstone..

If Paul Wellstone (RIP) was alive and running for office today, he would get BTFO in rural areas like every other Democrat. We are in the middle of a realignment, that began in 2000 and reached its apotheosis in 2018.

[Calthrina950]

if the democratic party wants to do well in rural areas they should read more about Paul Wellstone..

If Paul Wellstone (RIP) was alive and running for office today, he would get BTFO in rural areas like every other Democrat. We are in the middle of a realignment, that began in 2000 and reached its apotheosis in 2018.

Agreed. As I said, by 2050 I fully expect Democrats to be winning national elections with only the same number of counties carried by Walter Mondale or George McGovern. They might be even able to win with just the nation's 100 most populous counties!

[Sumner 1868]

I'm bumping this back up again, because I think that the recent election has given us insight into where we are headed. It appears that Democrats are on track to do even worse in rural areas going forward. By 2050, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat is winning a national election with fewer counties than George McGovern.

It also showed the roadmap to the future irrelevancy of rural areas as far as the political landscape goes. They obviously aren't totally irrelevant yet, but their salience is unmistakenly on the decline, especially outside of the Senate.

In anything but the House (which is still significant, obviously), yes, they are irrelevant.  The misconception is that Republican candidates are only winning rural voters.  For literally 30-40 years, there haven't been enough rural voters to win anything in all but two or three states.

No, but if it wasn't for the Racist Hicks, your party would be an irrelevant rump and a permanent minority.

Nope as after 8 years of total Dem Progressive Rule our nation would be in bad shape so Conservative Republicans would win again and fix the nation just like they did in the 1980s

The nation was horrible in the 1980s.

[RINO Tom]

I'm bumping this back up again, because I think that the recent election has given us insight into where we are headed. It appears that Democrats are on track to do even worse in rural areas going forward. By 2050, it wouldn't surprise me if a Democrat is winning a national election with fewer counties than George McGovern.

It also showed the roadmap to the future irrelevancy of rural areas as far as the political landscape goes. They obviously aren't totally irrelevant yet, but their salience is unmistakenly on the decline, especially outside of the Senate.

In anything but the House (which is still significant, obviously), yes, they are irrelevant.  The misconception is that Republican candidates are only winning rural voters.  For literally 30-40 years, there haven't been enough rural voters to win anything in all but two or three states.

No, but if it wasn't for the Racist Hicks, your party would be an irrelevant rump and a permanent minority.

Nope as after 8 years of total Dem Progressive Rule our nation would be in bad shape so Conservative Republicans would win again and fix the nation just like they did in the 1980s

The nation was horrible in the 1980s.

You guys should argue about it.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Of course they will. Almost nothing in politics is permanent, although this divide will like remain for a long time.

It should be noted though that Democrats are not totally dead in rural areas, and neither are Republicans in suburban areas. Democrats are still very much alive in certain rural areas, which tend to be more well-educated and/or diverse, such as Vermont, Hispanic parts of New Mexico, Texas and California, and the rural black belt in the south. While Republicans are still strong in the WOW counties and certain suburbs in the south (Birmingham, Nashville, Charlotte, Dallas, etc).

[Skill and Chance]

if the democratic party wants to do well in rural areas they should read more about Paul Wellstone..

If Paul Wellstone (RIP) was alive and running for office today, he would get BTFO in rural areas like every other Democrat. We are in the middle of a realignment, that began in 2000 and reached its apotheosis in 2018.

Agreed. As I said, by 2050 I fully expect Democrats to be winning national elections with only the same number of counties carried by Walter Mondale or George McGovern. They might be even able to win with just the nation's 100 most populous counties!

Can that coalition win the Senate, though?  I guess it's possible if they are getting 70%+ of the vote in e.g. SLC/OKC/Omaha/Boise/Portland (ME and OR), but those cities are pretty far down the population list.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

if the democratic party wants to do well in rural areas they should read more about Paul Wellstone..

If Paul Wellstone (RIP) was alive and running for office today, he would get BTFO in rural areas like every other Democrat. We are in the middle of a realignment, that began in 2000 and reached its apotheosis in 2018.

Agreed. As I said, by 2050 I fully expect Democrats to be winning national elections with only the same number of counties carried by Walter Mondale or George McGovern. They might be even able to win with just the nation's 100 most populous counties!

Can that coalition win the Senate, though?  I guess it's possible if they are getting 70%+ of the vote in e.g. SLC/OKC/Omaha/Boise/Portland (ME and OR), but those cities are pretty far down the population list.

FWIW, there are 18 states more urban than the country as a whole, sequentially CA, NJ, NV, MA, HI, FL, RI, UT, AZ, IL, CT, NY, MD, CO, TX, WA, DE, and OR. Democrats have to win both senate seats in all of them (except Utah--though things could be very different in a while) to be competitive in the future. DC and PR would also belong in this heavily urbanized category if added in the future. Below this line, Dems need to overperform in PA, NM, VA, GA, MI, MN, and WI, all of which are over 70% urban. OH, KS, LA, NE, ID, and MO all are over 70% urban as well, but seem further out of grasp. Further down, NC, AK, IA, NH, MT, VT, and ME are all theoretically promising. The latter two are the most favorable right now, but they're actually majority rural, and it's questionable if they can hold out forever.