Who Are The 15-20% of Clinton Supporters in Deep Red Backcountry?

[BuckeyeNut]

They didn't engage in as much inbreeding and therefore have less defective genes.

ROMNEY-CLINTON VOTERS ARE AWESOME AMAZING COSMOPOLITAN PEOPLE WHO ARE NICE AND JUST WANT A REASONABLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT DOESN'T STAND FOR ANY ECONOMIC POLICY AMIRITE!?!?!

I wouldn't expect anyone on this 100% white and male forum to understand, but I'd be happy to talk about progressive economic policy after people like you stop coddling those with horrifying views.

Pursuing Romney-Clinton voters means abandoning progressive economic policy.

No. We don't have to abandon that to win their vote. Why would they vote for the party that demonizes them as "coastal elites"?

LOL, "coastal elites" refers to DC lobbyists, media personalities in the Beltway and NYC, etc .... not a family making $400k per year in Westchester.  That should be quite obvious.

Maybe in suburban Chicago, but I'd be skeptical as to the veracity of your claim in the rural midwest and plains.

[RINO Tom]

They didn't engage in as much inbreeding and therefore have less defective genes.

ROMNEY-CLINTON VOTERS ARE AWESOME AMAZING COSMOPOLITAN PEOPLE WHO ARE NICE AND JUST WANT A REASONABLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT DOESN'T STAND FOR ANY ECONOMIC POLICY AMIRITE!?!?!

I wouldn't expect anyone on this 100% white and male forum to understand, but I'd be happy to talk about progressive economic policy after people like you stop coddling those with horrifying views.

Pursuing Romney-Clinton voters means abandoning progressive economic policy.

No. We don't have to abandon that to win their vote. Why would they vote for the party that demonizes them as "coastal elites"?

LOL, "coastal elites" refers to DC lobbyists, media personalities in the Beltway and NYC, etc .... not a family making $400k per year in Westchester.  That should be quite obvious.

Maybe in suburban Chicago, but I'd be skeptical as to the veracity of your claim in the rural midwest and plains.

I live in Iowa and am from Peoria.  I haven't ever lived in these super wealthy suburbs.  I'm just making the observation that I think a lot of people on the coasts comically overrate how much anyone (at least in the Midwest) looks at them with envy, intimidation or even much respect at all.  A lot of people - rightly or wrongly - see them as dirty cesspools full of brash, unsophisticated people lacking in manners on the East Coast and vapid, hippie weirdos on the West Coast.  Do I think those things?  No, as I have met many kind people from both.  Is the joke on the Midwesterners who think that?  Maybe.  But no one I know in *The Heartland* or *Middle America* really concerns themselves much with the activities of people on the coasts, and they CERTAINLY don't think of them as "elite."

[BuckeyeNut]

They didn't engage in as much inbreeding and therefore have less defective genes.

ROMNEY-CLINTON VOTERS ARE AWESOME AMAZING COSMOPOLITAN PEOPLE WHO ARE NICE AND JUST WANT A REASONABLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT DOESN'T STAND FOR ANY ECONOMIC POLICY AMIRITE!?!?!

I wouldn't expect anyone on this 100% white and male forum to understand, but I'd be happy to talk about progressive economic policy after people like you stop coddling those with horrifying views.

Pursuing Romney-Clinton voters means abandoning progressive economic policy.

No. We don't have to abandon that to win their vote. Why would they vote for the party that demonizes them as "coastal elites"?

LOL, "coastal elites" refers to DC lobbyists, media personalities in the Beltway and NYC, etc .... not a family making $400k per year in Westchester.  That should be quite obvious.

Maybe in suburban Chicago, but I'd be skeptical as to the veracity of your claim in the rural midwest and plains.

I live in Iowa and am from Peoria.  I haven't ever lived in these super wealthy suburbs.  I'm just making the observation that I think a lot of people on the coasts comically overrate how much anyone (at least in the Midwest) looks at them with envy, intimidation or even much respect at all.  A lot of people - rightly or wrongly - see them as dirty cesspools full of brash, unsophisticated people lacking in manners on the East Coast and vapid, hippie weirdos on the West Coast.  Do I think those things?  No, as I have met many kind people from both.  Is the joke on the Midwesterners who think that?  Maybe.  But no one I know in *The Heartland* or *Middle America* really concerns themselves much with the activities of people on the coasts, and they CERTAINLY don't think of them as "elite."

Ah, I misunderstood you, then. Elite is definitely deserving of the scare quotes, but agreed.

[VPH]

Speaking anecdotally here, but I have met enough of these voters and activists to notice some trends. A lot of the candidates I have met from these places were not vocal in support of Hillary, but they likely voted for her.

One subset seems to be more conservative Democrats who have always considered themselves Democrats. Most of them have some sort of family connection to the New Deal, and lots of them are older. There is a decent amount of them in historically Democratic counties, especially in deeply Catholic areas here. Their influence showed in the Kansas 4th District special election nomination contest, as most of this type of delegate from rural areas picked Dennis McKinney (from Kiowa County-11% Hillary), who was very much one of their own. They tend to be more Democratic on economic issues, emphasizing the importance of government in fostering a fairer, more equitable society. Gubernatorial candidate Josh Svaty (from Ellsworth County-19% Hillary) would be another example of this type, although he is younger and decidedly more progressive on some issues.

Taken to one end, some of these more conservative rural Democrats are very very conservative. I knew one activist and his wife (from Elk County-13% Hillary) who supported Rocky De La Fuente in the 2016 Democratic Primary and some other minor candidate in the 2012 Democratic Primary. Not the most likely to vote for Hillary in the general election, considering he had some choice words for her when we talked. Sadly, this couple passed away before the election but they were always interesting to talk to.

The second subset is mostly female and more concerned with social justice. I know a number of activists who fit into this category. These voters tend to be indistinguishable on most policy issues from a lot of the more urban "indivisible" types. Many backed Bernie Sanders in the primary, because of his progressive stances. My theory is that these voters are more to the left because they're surrounded by conservatives. As an example, an awesome state senate candidate in Eastern Kansas, Mark Pringle, who won his home county (Woodson County-19% Hillary) was deeply progressive on many issues. Some smaller scale family farmers fall into this category. They are also prevalent around small town university campuses, as in Pratt County (20% Clinton).

Yet another subset, which I have not met that many people from, are very poor voters. Many of them depend on forms of government assistance, but my thought it lots of them don't vote. Some certainly factor into the Clinton support in very red areas. Interesting to think whether or not Bernie would have gotten more in this group to vote.

Another group of people who fit this are rural Latinos who can vote. In many Western Kansas counties, there is a high Latino population, but many are ineligible to vote. While the Latino populations here tend to be more conservative than elsewhere, many do support Democrats. I have a hunch that this helps explain some of the swings in rural Western Kansas (even outside of Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal). Stafford County (16% Clinton) has some too.

Then there are small historically Black settlements in very red, White counties. Nicodemus KS (Graham County-15% Clinton) is one example, and so are parts of Coffeyville (Montgomery County-22% Clinton) and I know some exist in Oklahoma.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I remember reading a Washington Post article from earlier this year where the reporter interviewed both Trump voters and at least one Clinton voter in Garrett County, MD, in deeply Republican Western MD. The Clinton voter said something like most people in the county don't get outside the county very often, and have a case of fearing the unknown.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Yeah I know this is later, but it is still relevant, and I thought I found something pretty cool. I found a former coal miner and mine equipment seller who supported Clinton at 2:07. Essentially his reasoning, I don't like or trust Trump, and I'm a lifelong democrat so I have to vote for Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX5wP52GMu0

[Intell]

1. The Absolute Poorest, the ones that are continually on perpetual welfare and have family members that have not worked for a majority of their lives.

2. Pink-Collar Workers: People that work on and off for Walmart and a service orientated job. Women and the young amongst this group tend to be much more democratic.

3. Working Class Loyalists: I'm a Democrat, I vote for Clinton. Republican are for the rich.

4. Socially Liberal People: Working class but socially liberal and economically leftist. Very much disproportionately women.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

They didn't engage in as much inbreeding and therefore have less defective genes.

ROMNEY-CLINTON VOTERS ARE AWESOME AMAZING COSMOPOLITAN PEOPLE WHO ARE NICE AND JUST WANT A REASONABLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT DOESN'T STAND FOR ANY ECONOMIC POLICY AMIRITE!?!?!

I wouldn't expect anyone on this 100% white and male forum to understand, but I'd be happy to talk about progressive economic policy after people like you stop coddling those with horrifying views.

Pursuing Romney-Clinton voters means abandoning progressive economic policy.

No. We don't have to abandon that to win their vote. Why would they vote for the party that demonizes them as "coastal elites"?

LOL, "coastal elites" refers to DC lobbyists, media personalities in the Beltway and NYC, etc .... not a family making $400k per year in Westchester.  That should be quite obvious.

It certainly refers to a family making $400k in Manhattan, though. When the term is used, I do not get the sense that it refers to a small group of people within the coastal cities. In fact, I think those using the term would also group in an individual from Manhattan or DC making $40k and the people using the term would probably perceive that the person makes a lot more than $40k if they met them.

It has much more to do with culture than with wealth or power, in my opinion.

"Coastal elites" is a dog whistle for "Jews," and always has been.

[Alabama_Indy10]

A lot of the weirdos I went/go to school with voted for Clinton.

[Yellowhammer]

The few racial minorities that are around in those parts, the last of the 70 y.o. + demosaurs, some public school teachers, and the few token LGBT's. This describes nearly the entirety of the 2016 democratic electorate in my county, which was only 10% of the total.

[DINGO Joe]

I do feel bad for the random liberals trapped in places like Ohatchee, it's a pretty crappy place.

[NOVA Green]

Speaking anecdotally here, but I have met enough of these voters and activists to notice some trends. A lot of the candidates I have met from these places were not vocal in support of Hillary, but they likely voted for her.

One subset seems to be more conservative Democrats who have always considered themselves Democrats. Most of them have some sort of family connection to the New Deal, and lots of them are older. There is a decent amount of them in historically Democratic counties, especially in deeply Catholic areas here. Their influence showed in the Kansas 4th District special election nomination contest, as most of this type of delegate from rural areas picked Dennis McKinney (from Kiowa County-11% Hillary), who was very much one of their own. They tend to be more Democratic on economic issues, emphasizing the importance of government in fostering a fairer, more equitable society. Gubernatorial candidate Josh Svaty (from Ellsworth County-19% Hillary) would be another example of this type, although he is younger and decidedly more progressive on some issues.

Taken to one end, some of these more conservative rural Democrats are very very conservative. I knew one activist and his wife (from Elk County-13% Hillary) who supported Rocky De La Fuente in the 2016 Democratic Primary and some other minor candidate in the 2012 Democratic Primary. Not the most likely to vote for Hillary in the general election, considering he had some choice words for her when we talked. Sadly, this couple passed away before the election but they were always interesting to talk to.

The second subset is mostly female and more concerned with social justice. I know a number of activists who fit into this category. These voters tend to be indistinguishable on most policy issues from a lot of the more urban "indivisible" types. Many backed Bernie Sanders in the primary, because of his progressive stances. My theory is that these voters are more to the left because they're surrounded by conservatives. As an example, an awesome state senate candidate in Eastern Kansas, Mark Pringle, who won his home county (Woodson County-19% Hillary) was deeply progressive on many issues. Some smaller scale family farmers fall into this category. They are also prevalent around small town university campuses, as in Pratt County (20% Clinton).

Yet another subset, which I have not met that many people from, are very poor voters. Many of them depend on forms of government assistance, but my thought it lots of them don't vote. Some certainly factor into the Clinton support in very red areas. Interesting to think whether or not Bernie would have gotten more in this group to vote.

Another group of people who fit this are rural Latinos who can vote. In many Western Kansas counties, there is a high Latino population, but many are ineligible to vote. While the Latino populations here tend to be more conservative than elsewhere, many do support Democrats. I have a hunch that this helps explain some of the swings in rural Western Kansas (even outside of Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal). Stafford County (16% Clinton) has some too.

Then there are small historically Black settlements in very red, White counties. Nicodemus KS (Graham County-15% Clinton) is one example, and so are parts of Coffeyville (Montgomery County-22% Clinton) and I know some exist in Oklahoma.

I skimmed this shortly after you first posted, because of all the Labor Day Weekend stuff going on.

Just went a re-read and cross-posted in the Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High Quality Posts Thread

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261105.msg6413573#msg6413573

[Bojack Horseman]

I was one of only 28% of voters in my township to vote for Clinton.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Speaking anecdotally here, but I have met enough of these voters and activists to notice some trends. A lot of the candidates I have met from these places were not vocal in support of Hillary, but they likely voted for her.

One subset seems to be more conservative Democrats who have always considered themselves Democrats. Most of them have some sort of family connection to the New Deal, and lots of them are older. There is a decent amount of them in historically Democratic counties, especially in deeply Catholic areas here. Their influence showed in the Kansas 4th District special election nomination contest, as most of this type of delegate from rural areas picked Dennis McKinney (from Kiowa County-11% Hillary), who was very much one of their own. They tend to be more Democratic on economic issues, emphasizing the importance of government in fostering a fairer, more equitable society. Gubernatorial candidate Josh Svaty (from Ellsworth County-19% Hillary) would be another example of this type, although he is younger and decidedly more progressive on some issues.

Taken to one end, some of these more conservative rural Democrats are very very conservative. I knew one activist and his wife (from Elk County-13% Hillary) who supported Rocky De La Fuente in the 2016 Democratic Primary and some other minor candidate in the 2012 Democratic Primary. Not the most likely to vote for Hillary in the general election, considering he had some choice words for her when we talked. Sadly, this couple passed away before the election but they were always interesting to talk to.

The second subset is mostly female and more concerned with social justice. I know a number of activists who fit into this category. These voters tend to be indistinguishable on most policy issues from a lot of the more urban "indivisible" types. Many backed Bernie Sanders in the primary, because of his progressive stances. My theory is that these voters are more to the left because they're surrounded by conservatives. As an example, an awesome state senate candidate in Eastern Kansas, Mark Pringle, who won his home county (Woodson County-19% Hillary) was deeply progressive on many issues. Some smaller scale family farmers fall into this category. They are also prevalent around small town university campuses, as in Pratt County (20% Clinton).

Yet another subset, which I have not met that many people from, are very poor voters. Many of them depend on forms of government assistance, but my thought it lots of them don't vote. Some certainly factor into the Clinton support in very red areas. Interesting to think whether or not Bernie would have gotten more in this group to vote.

Another group of people who fit this are rural Latinos who can vote. In many Western Kansas counties, there is a high Latino population, but many are ineligible to vote. While the Latino populations here tend to be more conservative than elsewhere, many do support Democrats. I have a hunch that this helps explain some of the swings in rural Western Kansas (even outside of Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal). Stafford County (16% Clinton) has some too.

Then there are small historically Black settlements in very red, White counties. Nicodemus KS (Graham County-15% Clinton) is one example, and so are parts of Coffeyville (Montgomery County-22% Clinton) and I know some exist in Oklahoma.

Had there been a focus on the ECONOMIC game plan (including the issue of income inequality for the SJWs in this coalition), Trump would have been defeated. 

America rejected Hillary's "Girl Power" campaign.  "This Is My Fight Song".  Endless diatribes on "the condition of women and girls " (as if men and boys are doing great).  Endless tut-tutting on Trump's personal behavior (while engaging in secret s--t-shaming campaigns against Broaddrick, Willey, Jones, etc.).  Millions of dollars earned from speeches paid for by Wall Street.  America rejected all of that.  America did not, however, reject the sort of campaign that would have appealed to those highlighted groups.  The Clintonistas chose not to put that campaign on.

Here's a question:  Whatever you may think of the immigration issue, how were DEMOCRATIC voters in some of these categories affected by seeing a display of illegal aliens at the 2016 Democratic National Convention portrayed as "Americans".  "THESE ARE YOUR COUNTRYMEN!" shrieked one speaker.  How do you think that played with most of these constituencies that have the capacity to produce more Democratic votes than they do (according to this well-reasoned post)?