The Rural Shift

[Progressive Pessimist]

How did Obama do so good in rural areas in 2012

Because Romney was a Mormon.

This definitely helped and for some reason people seem to not want to acknowledge it

I SERIOUSLY doubt Romney being a Mormon mattered to these sorts of people more than Obama being black.

I don't know about that. I think we may underestimate how much skepticism there is about the Church of LDS.

Considering how little these voters care about Trump's obvious heathen ways and lack of a real understanding of Christianity, I don't think they actually care about religion as much in general, let alone Mormonism. It's incidental to Romney's loss to me.

[swf541]

How did Obama do so good in rural areas in 2012

Because Romney was a Mormon.

This definitely helped and for some reason people seem to not want to acknowledge it

I SERIOUSLY doubt Romney being a Mormon mattered to these sorts of people more than Obama being black.

I don't know about that. I think we may underestimate how much skepticism there is about the Church of LDS.

Considering how little these voters care about Trump's obvious heathen ways and lack of a real understanding of Christianity, I don't think they actually care about religion as much in general, let alone Mormonism. It's incidental to Romney's loss to me.

I dont think it was the cause but I do think it was a contributing factor.

[RINO Tom]

This also gets me thinking of what is meant by "Rural."  Growing up, I definitely differentiated between "Rural" and "Small City/Town," but that might just be Midwestern ... lol.  I thought of "rural" as a stand alone small town or literally people living on farms and/or in the country away from neighborhoods.  As I have gotten older, I am fine considering an area like my grandparents' hometown of Kewanee, IL (population around 12,500 and used to be much higher) as clearly "rural," but I do think random population cutoffs or county cutoffs don't work very well.

For example, my girlfriends' parents live in a very small town outside of Davenport, IA, but I wouldn't call where they live necessarily "rural" ... it seems more exurban.  There is an old town square from ages ago, and everything else is relatively new neighborhoods.  They DO live in Scott County, so a county cutoff would work here, but many people MIGHT consider where they live to be rural, so counting "Scott County as not 'rural'" wouldn't work if that's the case.

Then I look at an area like Germantown Hills outside of Peoria, IL.  It's only a town of around 3,500, and its county (Woodford) only has about 40,000 people.  However, Germantown Hills is quite clearly more in sync with an "exurban" to "suburban" character.  Nearly everyone who lives there works in Peoria, its 50%+ with a bachelor's degree or higher is significantly above the national average, its median household income of $98,500 is very high and its mean of the top 5% of incomes of $749,000 puts it WELL above instate suburban comparisons like Glenview, Wheaton or Naperville.

I am not sure what is usually used as a good cutoff for "rural," but to me it should be at least a town that has no "suburbs" (using this very, very liberally) that rely on it for work and does not rely on any other bigger city in a day-to-day way.

[Alben Barkley]

How did Obama do so good in rural areas in 2012

Because Romney was a Mormon.

This definitely helped and for some reason people seem to not want to acknowledge it

I SERIOUSLY doubt Romney being a Mormon mattered to these sorts of people more than Obama being black.

I say this as someone in rural Appalachian Maryland, it mattered more to several voters I knew at the time who typically voted republican more so then Obama being black did.  Evangelicals in general really do not like Mormons.

Man you’re talking to someone who lives in Kentucky, is surrounded by evangelicals, and was raised as one. While I was always told the Mormons were a weird cult of sorts (which to be fair is actually true), evangelicals and Mormons broadly agree on social issues and generally have no problem allying with other each other politically as a result. It’s not 1840 Missouri anymore with a “shoot on sight” order for Mormons. The tensions between Mormons and evangelical protestants are, in my experience at least, mostly historical now whereas racism is still alive and well in rural America. Among far more than evangelicals.

In fact, that’s the biggest reason I take issue with this theory: Trump didn’t really do any better with evangelicals than Romney did. He instead did much better with just rural populist voters who aren’t even that religious but have authoritarian tendencies. (My Ross Perot-voting grandfather is Exhibit A of this type.) Frankly, the MAGA crowd is a sort of “weird cult” unto itself that has essentially replaced or supplemented religion for many of these people. Just look at this s—t:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8Ubs5BMvw

[SInNYC]

There seems to be this belief here (if upvotes are representative) and elsewhere that suburbs shifted D in 2018.
According to CNN exit polls in 2018 vs 2016 (https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls, https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls) :

Suburbs went from 49-45 Trump to 49-49, shifting D by 4 points.
Rural areas went from 61-34 Trump to 56-42 R, shifting D by a big 13 points
Urban areas went from 60-34 Hillary to 65-32 D, shifting D by 7 points.

Its probably fairer to compare the 2 elections for the house. Here, suburbs shifed D+8, rural votes shifted D+14, and urban areas shifted D+10.

So, its suburbs that shifted the least and rural areas that shifted the most D in 2018. If you factor out the south where rural areas did not shift D, the difference is even greater.And this doesnt even count that the national Democratic party triaged many rural areas.

Such willful ignorance of reality (including by TV pundits and D leaders) is what gives me fear about Trump winning another term.

(this was edited to correct an earlier error I had in the numbers).

[RINO Tom]

^ I'd say this is mostly due to lazy, surface level analysis (the kind that said "All of the rich counties voted for Obama and not Romney!" ... curious how we can find a precinct map of 2008 and 2016 but not 2012...) and, frankly, a minority of Democratic partisans who have blown so much smoke up their own asses that they don't even want these voters back.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is gonna get crushed

[R.P. McM]

There seems to be this belief here (if upvotes are representative) and elsewhere that suburbs shifted D in 2018.
According to CNN exit polls in 2018 vs 2016 (https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls, https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls) :

Suburbs were 49-45 Hillary but shifted MORE R in 2018 to 49-49
Rural areas went from 61-34 Trump to 56-42 R, shifting D by a big 13 points
Urban areas went from 60-34 Hillary to 65-32 D, shifting D by 7 points.

Its probably fairer to compare the 2 elections for the house. Here, suburbs shifed D+8, rural votes shifted D+14, and urban areas shifted D+10.

So, its suburbs that shifted the least and rural areas that shifted the most D in 2018. If you factor out the south where rural areas did not shift D, the difference is even greater.And this doesnt even count that the national Democratic party triaged many rural areas.

Such willful ignorance of reality (including by TV pundits and D leaders) is what gives me fear about Trump winning another term.

Is it willful ignorance, or your inability to read an exit poll? Granted, we all make mistakes. But, assuming we're sticking with CNN, you've transposed the Democratic and Republican margins. In 2016, it was Trump who won suburban voters, 49%–45%, not Clinton:

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

[R.P. McM]

^ I'd say this is mostly due to lazy, surface level analysis (the kind that said "All of the rich counties voted for Obama and not Romney!" ... curious how we can find a precinct map of 2008 and 2016 but not 2012...) and, frankly, a minority of Democratic partisans who have blown so much smoke up their own asses that they don't even want these voters back.

Well, I have no comment on the rest of the nation, because I haven't analyzed it. However, in the case of MN, there was a decisive shift away from the GOP in educated, affluent suburban precincts. And it was more a factor of education than wealth. For instance, Hastings, MN, moved decisively in the direction of Trump. Is it poor? No. Is it poorly educated relative to the rest of the metropolitan area? Yes.

[SInNYC]

There seems to be this belief here (if upvotes are representative) and elsewhere that suburbs shifted D in 2018.
According to CNN exit polls in 2018 vs 2016 (https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls, https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls) :

Suburbs were 49-45 Hillary but shifted MORE R in 2018 to 49-49
Rural areas went from 61-34 Trump to 56-42 R, shifting D by a big 13 points
Urban areas went from 60-34 Hillary to 65-32 D, shifting D by 7 points.

Its probably fairer to compare the 2 elections for the house. Here, suburbs shifed D+8, rural votes shifted D+14, and urban areas shifted D+10.

So, its suburbs that shifted the least and rural areas that shifted the most D in 2018. If you factor out the south where rural areas did not shift D, the difference is even greater.And this doesnt even count that the national Democratic party triaged many rural areas.

Such willful ignorance of reality (including by TV pundits and D leaders) is what gives me fear about Trump winning another term.

Is it willful ignorance, or your inability to read an exit poll? Granted, we all make mistakes. But, assuming we're sticking with CNN, you've transposed the Democratic and Republican margins. In 2016, it was Trump who won suburban voters, 49%–45%, not Clinton:

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

You're right, and I corrected the error. However, although embarassing on my part, it does not change the fundamental thesis that suburbs shifted the least and rural areas shifed the most between 2016 and 2018.

[Fuzzy Bear]

How did Obama do so good in rural areas in 2012

Because Romney was a Mormon.

This definitely helped and for some reason people seem to not want to acknowledge it

I SERIOUSLY doubt Romney being a Mormon mattered to these sorts of people more than Obama being black.

I say this as someone in rural Appalachian Maryland, it mattered more to several voters I knew at the time who typically voted republican more so then Obama being black did.  Evangelicals in general really do not like Mormons.

I voted for Obama in 2012.  I may well have been the only person in my church at the time to have done so.  Maybe some of the black members voted for Obama, but I am not sure they did.

https://reachouttrust.org/mormon-vs-evangelical-christian-salvation/

Evangelicals do not "dislike" Mormons, but we do have un-bridgeable thological differences.  Mormon theology actually presents a different view of Jesus than Scripture, adds extra-Biblical text to Scripture (The Book Of Mormon), presents the personhood of Jesus, the divinity of Jesus, His Death and Resuurection, as something other than Scripture presents.  The bottom line to all of this is that Mormons have a fundamentally different idea of who Jesus was and is than Evangelical Christians.  This means that they have a different view of Salvation, and how one becomes saved from sin and attains Eternal Life.  Mormons teach a different road map to Heaven (as, quite frankly, do Roman Catholics).  These differences are not trivial; they are of ETERNAL consequence.  Evangelicals think so.  Mormons think so.  Roman Catholics think so as well; they do not believe in Justification by Faith Alone, and, ergo, have a very different view of Christ's Redemptive Work on the Cross.

So Evangelicals have deep theological differences with Mormons.  We have less deep, but Eternally Significant theological differences with Roman Catholics as well.  To say nothing of Jews, who (for the most part) reject Jesus as a Messiah, let alone THE Messiah.  (Messianic Jews are very much a minority in Judiasm.)

None of the above means that our groups don't have a lot in common.  We do believe in the same God.  We do share common beliefs in how God ordained the family and what God defines sin to be.  As such, Evangelicals have a very real basis with which to work together with Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Mormons, religious Jews, and (arguably) even non-Jihadic Muslims on many social issues.  Theological differences do not preclude Christians from coming together with believers of other faiths on a secular plane to discuss issues such as the disintegration of the family in America, abortion, overall issues of religious freedom, as well as issues of alleviating poverty and suffering without destroying the family unit.  On a purely secular plane, Evangelicals have much in common with Mormons, Roman Catholics, conservative Jews, and even non-Jihadic Muslims.

What I have found problematic is when theological differences are obscured for political expediency.  The Falwells invited Mitt Romney as their commencement speaker in 2012; this should not have happened, as Liberty is an expressly Evangelical Christian University; its commencement speakers should be no one BUT committed Christians.  Franklin Graham scrubbed his website clean of material that critiqued the Mormon Faith; if that material was of Eternal Significance before Mitt Romney was the GOP nominee, I fail to see why this should have been done simply because the GOP nominee was a Mormon.  Christ commanded us to Love One Another.  In that vein, it is certainly possible to love and work with people with whom we share secular aims in common without compromising on important theological differences of Eternal Consequence.

[Orser67]

A group called Catalist had a good article a while ago that made a similar point about the importance of rural voters in 2018:

Democratic gains were uneven across geography too, both at the Congressional level and in statewide elections. There has been a lot of attention paid to the Democratic victories in suburban areas, but we find that Democratic gains were actually largest in rural areas. These gains weren’t enough to get over 50% and win seats in many rural districts, so they have escaped much of the mainstream election analysis to this point. These changes are nonetheless important, particularly because they were large in many of the midwest battleground states that will no doubt be important in 2020.

I think some people really underestimate how much of a difference it makes whether Democrats lose rural counties by e.g. 60-40 versus 75-25, and how many persuadable voters there actually are in this country, even in rural areas. A lot of these voters may not vote Democratic in the long run, but even if that is the case, we could still see a pretty serious "dead cat bounce" in 2020.

[Roll Roons]

A group called Catalist had a good article a while ago that made a similar point about the importance of rural voters in 2018:

Democratic gains were uneven across geography too, both at the Congressional level and in statewide elections. There has been a lot of attention paid to the Democratic victories in suburban areas, but we find that Democratic gains were actually largest in rural areas. These gains weren’t enough to get over 50% and win seats in many rural districts, so they have escaped much of the mainstream election analysis to this point. These changes are nonetheless important, particularly because they were large in many of the midwest battleground states that will no doubt be important in 2020.

I think some people really underestimate how much of a difference it makes whether Democrats lose rural counties by e.g. 60-40 versus 75-25, and how many persuadable voters there actually are in this country, even in rural areas. A lot of these voters may not vote Democratic in the long run, but even if that is the case, we could still see a pretty serious "dead cat bounce" in 2020.

Yes. Andy Beshear's victory is a great example of this. He was certainly helped by getting great turnout from Louisville and Lexington, in addition to winning Kenton and Campbell and making inroads in Boone and Oldham, but the real key is that he did well in Coal Country. He won counties like Breathitt, Wolfe, Knott, Floyd, and yes, Elliott, that Trump overwhelmingly won. In a narrow victory, rural areas made the difference for him.

Same story with JBE. For instance, Hillary lost Cajun Calcasieu by 33 points, and JBE only did so by 4. Even in the infamous LaSalle, JBE got 18%. Doesn't sound like a lot, until you see that Hillary got 9.

On the flip side, Bill Nelson failed to carry his home county of Brevard in 2018, after having won it in all of his previous races. He lost it by nearly 40K votes, and lost statewide by 10K. He may have done better than Hillary there, but his decline in rural areas contributed to his loss just as much as his underperformance among Miami-Dade Hispanics.

For a Republican example, Larry Hogan, in 2018, got 44% in Montgomery County, 28% in Prince George's, and 32% in Baltimore City. He won statewide by 12. Donald Trump got 19% in Montgomery, 8% in PG, and 11% in Baltimore City. He barely got a third of the statewide vote. Kentucky, Louisiana and Maryland may not be competitive at the presidential level, but margins do matter.

[R.P. McM]

There seems to be this belief here (if upvotes are representative) and elsewhere that suburbs shifted D in 2018.
According to CNN exit polls in 2018 vs 2016 (https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls, https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls) :

Suburbs were 49-45 Hillary but shifted MORE R in 2018 to 49-49
Rural areas went from 61-34 Trump to 56-42 R, shifting D by a big 13 points
Urban areas went from 60-34 Hillary to 65-32 D, shifting D by 7 points.

Its probably fairer to compare the 2 elections for the house. Here, suburbs shifed D+8, rural votes shifted D+14, and urban areas shifted D+10.

So, its suburbs that shifted the least and rural areas that shifted the most D in 2018. If you factor out the south where rural areas did not shift D, the difference is even greater.And this doesnt even count that the national Democratic party triaged many rural areas.

Such willful ignorance of reality (including by TV pundits and D leaders) is what gives me fear about Trump winning another term.

Is it willful ignorance, or your inability to read an exit poll? Granted, we all make mistakes. But, assuming we're sticking with CNN, you've transposed the Democratic and Republican margins. In 2016, it was Trump who won suburban voters, 49%–45%, not Clinton:

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

You're right, and I corrected the error. However, although embarassing on my part, it does not change the fundamental thesis that suburbs shifted the least and rural areas shifed the most between 2016 and 2018.

Thank you! And there's no need to feel embarrassed — politics is an imperfect art. Your premise may very well be correct.

[DINGO Joe]

A group called Catalist had a good article a while ago that made a similar point about the importance of rural voters in 2018:

Democratic gains were uneven across geography too, both at the Congressional level and in statewide elections. There has been a lot of attention paid to the Democratic victories in suburban areas, but we find that Democratic gains were actually largest in rural areas. These gains weren’t enough to get over 50% and win seats in many rural districts, so they have escaped much of the mainstream election analysis to this point. These changes are nonetheless important, particularly because they were large in many of the midwest battleground states that will no doubt be important in 2020.

I think some people really underestimate how much of a difference it makes whether Democrats lose rural counties by e.g. 60-40 versus 75-25, and how many persuadable voters there actually are in this country, even in rural areas. A lot of these voters may not vote Democratic in the long run, but even if that is the case, we could still see a pretty serious "dead cat bounce" in 2020.

Yes. Andy Beshear's victory is a great example of this. He was certainly helped by getting great turnout from Louisville and Lexington, in addition to winning Kenton and Campbell and making inroads in Boone and Oldham, but the real key is that he did well in Coal Country. He won counties like Breathitt, Wolfe, Knott, Floyd, and yes, Elliott, that Trump overwhelmingly won. In a narrow victory, rural areas made the difference for him.

Same story with JBE. For instance, Hillary lost Cajun Calcasieu by 33 points, and JBE only did so by 4. Even in the infamous LaSalle, JBE got 18%. Doesn't sound like a lot, until you see that Hillary got 9.

Well, in a close election every vote matters, but in both KY and LA the swings for the D candidate compared to 2015 were more favorable in metro areas than rural.