How can Dems win rural voters?

[Hope For A New Era]

They can't. You can't fight realignment.

[SN2903]

They can't. They are a rich suburban white party who looks down on rural voters and working class voters. Thanks Obama!

[DaleCooper]

They can't. You can't fight realignment.

This isn't true. Democrats aren't going to be winning the rural vote anytime soon, but like I said, there's a big difference between getting less than 30% of the rural vote and getting 35% of the rural vote, and making a concerted effort to appeal to these voters' concerns will win over some of them.

[Del Tachi]

You can't have a liberal media/ruling class that openly ridicules "small town" values and takes aim at rural conservatives

Not taking aim at you because this is legitimately what conservatives believe, but it's the Republican Party that thrives off attacking liberals for their lifestyle. "San Francisco/New York values" is a catchphrase used by conservatives. I've never once heard a Democrat talk condescendingly about rural areas, yet I hear it from Republicans every time I talk to one regarding any "social issues".

I don't disagree with anything you said here (the second part of your post though, hmmm) but Republicans don't take aim at New York and San Francisco and then deride the people who live there for "voting against their self-interest" like Democrats, including many on this Atlas US Talk Elections Forum/Blog, do with rural White people.  It isn't comparing like with like.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

You can't have a liberal media/ruling class that openly ridicules "small town" values and takes aim at rural conservatives

Not taking aim at you because this is legitimately what conservatives believe, but it's the Republican Party that thrives off attacking liberals for their lifestyle. "San Francisco/New York values" is a catchphrase used by conservatives. I've never once heard a Democrat talk condescendingly about rural areas, yet I hear it from Republicans every time I talk to one regarding any "social issues".

I don't disagree with anything you said here (the second part of your post though, hmmm) but Republicans don't take aim at New York and San Francisco and then deride the people who live there for "voting against their self-interest" like Democrats, including many on this Atlas US Talk Elections Forum/Blog, do with rural White people.  It isn't comparing like with like.

Uhhhh yes they do? Have you heard the way Republicans talk about DEMOCRAT RUN CITIES and the people who live there? The "Democratic plantation"-type talk?

[Del Tachi]

You can't have a liberal media/ruling class that openly ridicules "small town" values and takes aim at rural conservatives

Not taking aim at you because this is legitimately what conservatives believe, but it's the Republican Party that thrives off attacking liberals for their lifestyle. "San Francisco/New York values" is a catchphrase used by conservatives. I've never once heard a Democrat talk condescendingly about rural areas, yet I hear it from Republicans every time I talk to one regarding any "social issues".

I don't disagree with anything you said here (the second part of your post though, hmmm) but Republicans don't take aim at New York and San Francisco and then deride the people who live there for "voting against their self-interest" like Democrats, including many on this Atlas US Talk Elections Forum/Blog, do with rural White people.  It isn't comparing like with like.

Uhhhh yes they do? Have you heard the way Republicans talk about DEMOCRAT RUN CITIES and the people who live there? The "Democratic plantation"-type talk?

That rhetoric is really only aimed at Black voters (whether urban or rural) and not high-earning, White urban types that the GOP (rightfully) paints as out-of-touch elitists and then doesn't expect their vote in return, lol.

Moreoever, no one takes the "plantation" rhetoric seriously.  On the other hand,  Democratic media and commentators since 2016 have been waxing poetically about whether/if/how Democrats can reconnect with their rural base.  Joe Biden was largely nominated for this exact reason. 

[Gracile]

You can't have a liberal media/ruling class that openly ridicules "small town" values and takes aim at rural conservatives

Not taking aim at you because this is legitimately what conservatives believe, but it's the Republican Party that thrives off attacking liberals for their lifestyle. "San Francisco/New York values" is a catchphrase used by conservatives. I've never once heard a Democrat talk condescendingly about rural areas, yet I hear it from Republicans every time I talk to one regarding any "social issues".

I don't disagree with anything you said here (the second part of your post though, hmmm) but Republicans don't take aim at New York and San Francisco and then deride the people who live there for "voting against their self-interest" like Democrats, including many on this Atlas US Talk Elections Forum/Blog, do with rural White people.  It isn't comparing like with like.

Uhhhh yes they do? Have you heard the way Republicans talk about DEMOCRAT RUN CITIES and the people who live there? The "Democratic plantation"-type talk?

That rhetoric is really only aimed at Black voters (whether urban or rural) and not high-earning, White urban types that the GOP (rightfully) paints as out-of-touch elitists and then doesn't expect their vote in return, lol.

Moreoever, no one takes the "plantation" rhetoric seriously.  On the other hand,  Democratic media and commentators since 2016 have been waxing poetically about whether/if/how Democrats can reconnect with their rural base.  Joe Biden was largely nominated for this exact reason. 

The idea that cities are filled with wealthy, "elitist" whites is also largely a misrepresentation of cities' demographics by Republicans. This is largely built on the fact that many of the wealthiest individuals live in cities, but ignores the high levels of socioeconomic diversity that major cities have (there's also a bit of a misrepresentation of cities' median income which also doesn't take into account the higher cost of living and how cities generally have higher levels of income inequality).

[DPKdebator]

The focus of current politics on the culture wars makes the Democrats winning over rural voters just about impossible. Subsidies might be better than laissez faire markets for farmers, but a left-wing economic platform combined with hardcore social liberalism isn't exactly going to win over many of them.

[DINGO Joe]

Well, rural areas used to be more swingy with "farm revolts" and such and they usually swung against the incumbent party because, well rural America has been in decline for decades now.  I mean, I've been traveling back to rural NE Iowa for 50 years now and it's really become a hollowed out, almost feudal place over that time.  Once upon a time every 40 to 80 acres had a house but then there was a trend of farmers moving to "town" (often smaller than 500) and you'd have these tidy towns with their brick main streets.  Nothing fancy but Rockwellian.  Sometimes the farm house would be rented out to the kids or farmhands, but the kids moved away and improved mechanization required fewer farm hands and the farms started getting bigger so the houses were torn down because they're on top of good soil that could be another 1/2 acres to farm.  Now the farms are 400 to 600 acres or larger and the houses left can been quite fancy with huge metal buildings holding all the machinery.  The little towns are where the small farmers who sold out or went bankrupt live out their lives and are showing their age or completely abandoned because nobody wants to live here anymore.  The main street is gap toothed with buildings torn or burned down with the occasional metal building to replace something (rural America loves corrugated metal these days).  It's pretty depressing and no reason to think anyone could make it better.

So, unless a rural area has recreational or retirement mecca opportunities they've just become places where the local old people live out their days. There still are the remaining corporate farmers and they are getting record subsidies at this point, but the fewer farm hands needed are more likely to be guest workers than locals.  When your population pyramid reaches a certain point it's hard to attract even a modest sized manufacturer  Rural places along the interstates or near a metro have done somewhat better because they are in the pathways of commerce  but even these places are only "better" because they have the Walmart and the gas station/food marts, or thanks to the Interstate a distribution center.

There is the lower cost of living in rural America and the suggestion that with better internet these places could attract remote workers and maybe that'll help close to a metro, but don't expect a wave of these folks .  It's just not gonna happen.  And the most recent wave of the COVID has proven that rural America isn't a haven from pandemics and in fact local stupidity has made it worse.

So, this is really a "state of rural America" post rather than how to appeal to them.  Can't really tell them they are going to be great again, unless you wish to lie to them.  I mean nationally, the population growth is slowing down and the boomers will die off actuarially speaking.  Unless a young person gets to take over the farm, they will go places with better opportunities.  That's been happening  since WWII.  You can make some investment in IT put some on the modern Interstate that is the internet, but how much infrastructure investment should be made on roads and the like in areas with fewer and fewer people is highly questionable.  Japan has a program that consolidates the population in rural areas into more sustainable locales, but I can't imagine rural America accepting anything like that except in an extreme environmental or natural disaster situations. 

So, this is a long post to essentially say...nothing.

[Hope For A New Era]

They can't. You can't fight realignment.

This isn't true. Democrats aren't going to be winning the rural vote anytime soon, but like I said, there's a big difference between getting less than 30% of the rural vote and getting 35% of the rural vote, and making a concerted effort to appeal to these voters' concerns will win over some of them.

Well, you can fight realignment, but it's a bad idea. You'll just be disappointed again and again.

Rural performance for Dems seems to be more a #candidatequality thing than anything else right now. I'm not sure what more the party could do to make itself more appealing in rural areas. These rural voters don't hate the policy, they hate the D next to the person's name. We need more of those magical candidates like Joe Manchin who make people say "he's a Democrat, but he's our Democrat." They hate the D. You can be as liberal as you want as long as you can get people to look past the D.

[ProgressiveModerate]

They can't. You can't fight realignment.

This isn't true. Democrats aren't going to be winning the rural vote anytime soon, but like I said, there's a big difference between getting less than 30% of the rural vote and getting 35% of the rural vote, and making a concerted effort to appeal to these voters' concerns will win over some of them.

Well, you can fight realignment, but it's a bad idea. You'll just be disappointed again and again.

Rural performance for Dems seems to be more a #candidatequality thing than anything else right now. I'm not sure what more the party could do to make itself more appealing in rural areas. These rural voters don't hate the policy, they hate the D next to the person's name. We need more of those magical candidates like Joe Manchin who make people say "he's a Democrat, but he's our Democrat." They hate the D. You can be as liberal as you want as long as you can get people to look past the D.

I would be curious if there would be a performance difference if someone ran as an independent in a place like WV or MT, but was basically a Democrat policy wise.

[Hope For A New Era]

They can't. You can't fight realignment.

This isn't true. Democrats aren't going to be winning the rural vote anytime soon, but like I said, there's a big difference between getting less than 30% of the rural vote and getting 35% of the rural vote, and making a concerted effort to appeal to these voters' concerns will win over some of them.

Well, you can fight realignment, but it's a bad idea. You'll just be disappointed again and again.

Rural performance for Dems seems to be more a #candidatequality thing than anything else right now. I'm not sure what more the party could do to make itself more appealing in rural areas. These rural voters don't hate the policy, they hate the D next to the person's name. We need more of those magical candidates like Joe Manchin who make people say "he's a Democrat, but he's our Democrat." They hate the D. You can be as liberal as you want as long as you can get people to look past the D.

I would be curious if there would be a performance difference if someone ran as an independent in a place like WV or MT, but was basically a Democrat policy wise.

Depends on if Republicans are smart enough to call them a "Democrat in disguise" or not.

[DaleCooper]

They can't. You can't fight realignment.

This isn't true. Democrats aren't going to be winning the rural vote anytime soon, but like I said, there's a big difference between getting less than 30% of the rural vote and getting 35% of the rural vote, and making a concerted effort to appeal to these voters' concerns will win over some of them.

Well, you can fight realignment, but it's a bad idea. You'll just be disappointed again and again.

Rural performance for Dems seems to be more a #candidatequality thing than anything else right now. I'm not sure what more the party could do to make itself more appealing in rural areas. These rural voters don't hate the policy, they hate the D next to the person's name. We need more of those magical candidates like Joe Manchin who make people say "he's a Democrat, but he's our Democrat." They hate the D. You can be as liberal as you want as long as you can get people to look past the D.

It takes years of local organizing in order to build trust in candidates like that. The longterm trust that's built in these rural communities has to come before the quality candidates can win.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Acting like you care about them and taking their concerns seriously instead of just dismissing them all as stupid uneducated hicks and bigots would be a start.

Actually campaigning in rural areas instead of trying to just run up big margins in big cities so you can ignore the rest of the country would be another.

And to everyone talking about “fighting realignment” it doesn’t have to be about winning rural areas outright any more than GOP outreach to black voters needs to have that objective. Just losing rural voters by less than they do now would help Democrats a lot. Also, the realignment is happening precisely BECAUSE Democrats have given rural voters the impression that they don’t care about them and have disdain for them and their way of life.

[MT Treasurer]

Remember these words of wisdom from a historical Democratic president:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and Fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

Is shooting cows in the head, running ads about your body parts, making your haircut the trademark of your campaign, showing off your belly during a debate, highlighting the grease spots on your t-shirt, cursing and yelling like a schoolyard bully, and posing in front of a tractor part of explaining the New Deal and Fair Deal?

[VAR]

Remember these words of wisdom from a historical Democratic president:

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and Fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

Is shooting cows in the head, running ads about your body parts, making your haircut the trademark of your campaign, showing off your belly during a debate, highlighting the grease spots on your t-shirt, cursing and yelling like a schoolyard bully, and posing in front of a tractor part of explaining the New Deal and Fair Deal?

I mean, no, but we are too #elitist to understand how this works, my friend.

yikes did tester really do all those things?

[sofaboi]

Stop running candidates which only appeal to urban areas and college kids.

[MT Treasurer]

I mean, no, but we are too #elitist to understand how this works, my friend.

yikes did tester really do all those things?

Always assume that the answer to this question is ‘yes’ whenever Jon Tester is involved. Trust me, I wish I could be saying that I made it all up, but alas, literally all of it is true (there are more things that could be mentioned here but those certainly stand out). Yes, blatant aggressive pandering like in this case is obviously only part of the story behind Tester's (and other MT politicians') electoral success, but I always have to try hard to suppress a chuckle when people invoke notions of ‘identity politics’ in these threads and then associate it with certain messaging/campaigning tailored to particular demographic groups in a predominantly urban environment deemed anathema to rural/small-town voters, even though Jon Tester's campaign is quite literally the definition of identity politics. I don’t mean this in a snarky way or anything, but Amanda Curtis and Kathleen Williams certainly didn’t substantially underperform Tester because they attached less importance to the emphasis on New Deal/Fair Deal values than Tester — Curtis ran on one of the most progressive platforms of any Democrat in 2014 and certainly highlighted ‘kitchen-table issues’ more than Tester in any of his Senate campaigns! Kathleen Williams took a page out of the Schweitzer/Tester playbook after her 2018 loss, but it turns out that shooting clay pigeons and drinking beer just didn’t cut it for her.

I was in elementary school when Tester ran his first flat top/tractor ads, so time really does fly (heck, one of my best school friends during that time is now dad). I actually still remember asking my mom the day after the 2006 election who had won that race after getting home from school. Suffice it to say, I’ve been a proud #elitist since then.

[WD]

I mean, no, but we are too #elitist to understand how this works, my friend.

yikes did tester really do all those things?

Always assume that the answer to this question is ‘yes’ whenever Jon Tester is involved. Trust me, I wish I could be saying that I made it all up, but alas, literally all of it is true (there are more things that could be mentioned here but those certainly stand out). Yes, blatant aggressive pandering like in this case is obviously only part of the story behind Tester's (and other MT politicians') electoral success, but I always have to try hard to suppress a chuckle when people invoke notions of ‘identity politics’ in these threads and then associate it with certain messaging/campaigning tailored to particular demographic groups in a predominantly urban environment deemed anathema to rural/small-town voters, even though Jon Tester's campaign is quite literally the definition of identity politics. I don’t mean this in a snarky way or anything, but Amanda Curtis and Kathleen Williams certainly didn’t substantially underperform Tester because they attached less importance to the emphasis on New Deal/Fair Deal values than Tester — Curtis ran on one of the most progressive platforms of any Democrat in 2014 and certainly highlighted ‘kitchen-table issues’ more than Tester in any of his Senate campaigns! Kathleen Williams took a page out of the Schweitzer/Tester playbook after her 2018 loss, but it turns out that shooting clay pigeons and drinking beer just didn’t cut it for her.

I was in elementary school when Tester ran his first flat top/tractor ads, so time really does fly (heck, one of my best school friends during that time is now dad). I actually still remember asking my mom the day after the 2006 election who had won that race after getting home from school. Suffice it to say, I’ve been a proud #elitist since then.

You can’t stop #Populism .

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Become more culturally moderate and develop a strong message. Emphasize support for farm issues and pander to rural people with subsidies.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

You can't have a liberal media/ruling class that openly ridicules "small town" values and takes aim at rural conservatives

Not taking aim at you because this is legitimately what conservatives believe, but it's the Republican Party that thrives off attacking liberals for their lifestyle. "San Francisco/New York values" is a catchphrase used by conservatives. I've never once heard a Democrat talk condescendingly about rural areas, yet I hear it from Republicans every time I talk to one regarding any "social issues".

Republicans don't take aim at New York and San Francisco and then deride the people who live there for "voting against their self-interest"

What rock have you been living under ?

[pbrower2a]

When the farm, dairy, and slaughterhouse laborers who vastly outnumber the family members of the owners and managers of those enterprises, then the game is up for the Right in the farm areas.  A huge chunk of those people are aliens ineligible to vote. 

[It’s so Joever]

They can't. They are a rich suburban white party who looks down on rural voters and working class voters. Thanks Obama!

No, we look down on idiots and traitors. If you happen to be rural or working class, that doesn’t change anything.
Sorry you can’t handle being asked to act like a human being.

[Use Your Illusion]

Very easily


- Relax on the gun stuff. Run Democrats who use the words "I will protect your 2nd Amendment rights in any efforts of reform and together we will pass legislation that EVERYONE can agree on"


- Stop the constant race-baiting because you're dealing with white people. Race-baiting is not necessary as a strategy to gain great numbers out of the black vote


Do that and you'll have immediate success

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Very easily


- Relax on the gun stuff. Run Democrats who use the words "I will protect your 2nd Amendment rights in any efforts of reform and together we will pass legislation that EVERYONE can agree on"


- Stop the constant race-baiting because you're dealing with white people. Race-baiting is not necessary as a strategy to gain great numbers out of the black vote


Do that and you'll have immediate success

This is exactly what nearly every major Democratic politician already says. Unfortunately, that does not quell the right's fearmongering about gun-snatching.