How can Dems improve with rural whites?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:40:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  How can Dems improve with rural whites?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: How can Dems improve with rural whites?  (Read 2666 times)
Beebeebutt
Rookie
**
Posts: 34
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 26, 2021, 10:21:03 PM »

What do you think it will take for Dems to improve with rural whites?
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2021, 10:53:20 PM »

Start by listening to recent Bill Maher, believe it or not.
Logged
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,023
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2021, 10:57:43 PM »

Start by listening to recent Bill Maher, believe it or not.

If there's one thing rural white people in Arkansas love doing, it's tuning in to watch Real Time with Bill Maher
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2021, 11:58:40 AM »

Abandon all of their current economic and social policies.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2021, 01:05:35 PM »

Abandon all of their current economic and social policies.

Nice lazy response.  Democrats won plenty of rural Whites literally three elections ago with nearly exactly the same policies on paper.  Obviously, whatever Democrats' actual problems are with "rural Whites" (as if all are exactly the same), your answer leaves a lot to be desired.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2021, 01:47:00 PM »

To give a serious response, actually visiting rural areas would be a good start. Showing that you care doesn't mean changing your views to be in complete agreement, since it's not like Republican politicians have zero disagreements with rural voters. Doing what some Indiana Democrats are currently doing, and not just focusing on the largest urban or suburban areas, but heading out to small towns, including some of the less densely populated areas of "blue" counties, and just listening to voters. They don't have to make their views seem identical to rural voters, simply have a conversation and try to reach some of them.

Putting more focus on economic issues is a good idea in general, but doing that while only focusing on cities isn't going to be particularly effective. Proving that they care about all voters, and pushing back against the "elitist cancel culture" optics is what they should be doing.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2021, 06:26:40 PM »

To give a serious response, actually visiting rural areas would be a good start. Showing that you care doesn't mean changing your views to be in complete agreement, since it's not like Republican politicians have zero disagreements with rural voters. Doing what some Indiana Democrats are currently doing, and not just focusing on the largest urban or suburban areas, but heading out to small towns, including some of the less densely populated areas of "blue" counties, and just listening to voters. They don't have to make their views seem identical to rural voters, simply have a conversation and try to reach some of them.

Putting more focus on economic issues is a good idea in general, but doing that while only focusing on cities isn't going to be particularly effective. Proving that they care about all voters, and pushing back against the "elitist cancel culture" optics is what they should be doing.

Literally the only reason "some" IN Democrats are doing that is because they’ve suffered complete electoral oblivion, have been condemned to long-term irrelevance, and have nothing (no gerrymandering, no real bench, no significantly favorable long-term trends, etc.) to make their situation less dire. National Democrats have less incentive to campaign in those places given that they’re in a far more competitive position than IN Democrats. Besides, IN Democrats are still going to lose badly in 2022/2024, likely underperforming even Clinton/Biden in most of these places.

There’s no way out for IN Democrats as long as they remain associated with the national party and run candidates who are only rhetorically or performatively moderate/"caring."

The "go everywhere"/"50-state" approach is hardly some novel strategy within the Democratic Party and has been proposed for decades, but it will remain futile given the ideological and, yes, rhetorical trajectory of the national Democratic party as well as some of the overarching global and cultural phenomena which have aided the structural power of modern-day liberalism. Unless candidates start actively renouncing certain elements of the platform (e.g. JBE in LA), they’ll mostly remain in the wilderness.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,133
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2021, 06:43:31 PM »
« Edited: November 30, 2021, 06:49:57 PM by CentristRepublican »

To give a serious response, actually visiting rural areas would be a good start. Showing that you care doesn't mean changing your views to be in complete agreement, since it's not like Republican politicians have zero disagreements with rural voters. Doing what some Indiana Democrats are currently doing, and not just focusing on the largest urban or suburban areas, but heading out to small towns, including some of the less densely populated areas of "blue" counties, and just listening to voters. They don't have to make their views seem identical to rural voters, simply have a conversation and try to reach some of them.

Putting more focus on economic issues is a good idea in general, but doing that while only focusing on cities isn't going to be particularly effective. Proving that they care about all voters, and pushing back against the "elitist cancel culture" optics is what they should be doing.


Good answer. They should also generally be more 'populist' and appeal to economic anxieties (as you said) - by emphasizing they want higher taxes on the ultra-rich, but not the middle class (I believe this is the case). As MT Treasurer probably would have/has said, Jon Tester's a pretty good example - since he's populist and he 'cares', he wins a good percentage of rural whites while not being much to the right of the average Democratic politician. Having said that, as I told MT Treasurer, white rural voters nationally aren't as appreciative of Tester's 'prairie populism' as their MT counterparts are.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2021, 06:55:34 PM »

To give a serious response, actually visiting rural areas would be a good start. Showing that you care doesn't mean changing your views to be in complete agreement, since it's not like Republican politicians have zero disagreements with rural voters. Doing what some Indiana Democrats are currently doing, and not just focusing on the largest urban or suburban areas, but heading out to small towns, including some of the less densely populated areas of "blue" counties, and just listening to voters. They don't have to make their views seem identical to rural voters, simply have a conversation and try to reach some of them.

Putting more focus on economic issues is a good idea in general, but doing that while only focusing on cities isn't going to be particularly effective. Proving that they care about all voters, and pushing back against the "elitist cancel culture" optics is what they should be doing.

Literally the only reason "some" IN Democrats are doing that is because they’ve suffered complete electoral oblivion, have been condemned to long-term irrelevance, and have nothing (no gerrymandering, no real bench, no significantly favorable long-term trends, etc.) to make their situation less dire. National Democrats have less incentive to campaign in those places given that they’re in a far more competitive position than IN Democrats. Besides, IN Democrats are still going to lose badly in 2022/2024, likely underperforming even Clinton/Biden in most of these places.

There’s no way out for IN Democrats as long as they remain associated with the national party and run candidates who are only rhetorically or performatively moderate/"caring."

The "go everywhere"/"50-state" approach is hardly some novel strategy within the Democratic Party and has been proposed for decades, but it will remain futile given the ideological and, yes, rhetorical trajectory of the national Democratic party as well as some of the overarching global and cultural phenomena which have aided the structural power of modern-day liberalism. Unless candidates start actively renouncing certain elements of the platform (e.g. JBE in LA), they’ll mostly remain in the wilderness.

My point is that the party as a whole should do this, not that there's nothing wrong with the national party. Not sure what your issue with my post is. Even if it took electoral oblivion for them to do this, at least they're approaching a better conclusion than simply doubling down on ignoring and writing off anyone who doesn't support them, which seems to be the Republican strategy in a lot of blue states. Yes, some Democrats do this too, but I don't get why it's only Democrats who should face electoral consequences for the national party being out of touch with segments of the population (even if some of the candidates themselves aren't the ones pushing the most unpopular elements of the party), while Republicans face no flak for crapping on over half of the country and happily writing off people who live in cities (and many of whom are struggling enormously.) Not to mention, very few make any effort to distance themselves from the party in any more than a very performative way.

We can criticize the Democratic Party and those within it who write off enormous numbers of voters and those who only pretend to care for electoral reasons without giving the Republican Party a pass for doing exactly the same thing and not even getting to the point of reflection on why they lose certain segments of the population so badly without assuming that said segments are brainwashed/ignorant/evil.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2021, 09:58:00 AM »

Need to bring back the anti-Wall Street narrative from 2008-12.  This trend probably starts with a bear market under a Republican president.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2021, 10:32:40 AM »

They'll improve with them when they need to.

Longer answer:
I know what MT Treasurer is talking about about the answer to him is "maybe" and I would go further to stay that there might be upcoming developments that might help Democrats appeal more to less developed areas without necessarily having to throw the national party under the bus. It might not help in places in South Dakota or Oklahoma, but it could be very helpful in places like Ohio, Florida,  Texas (for different reasons) and basically every place where the median voter generally votes Republican but is willing to vote for a "Good Democrat" or at least a "Good Democrat over a Bad Republican".
Logged
Southern Reactionary Dem
SouthernReactionaryDem
Rookie
**
Posts: 210
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2021, 10:33:28 AM »

Run genuine populists who fit the cultural views of their localities. Simply not talking about or downplaying cultural issues usually doesn't work. Voters see right through it.
Logged
Coolface’s actual roommate
pearlplate
Rookie
**
Posts: 50
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2021, 08:00:47 AM »

Stop the anti whiteness.
Logged
The Smiling Face On Your TV
slimey56
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,494
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.46, S: -7.30

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2021, 10:58:55 AM »

It'd unfortunately require a continuation of an unsustainable energy policy. A major factor in why rural areas as a whole have become more conservative is because of their local economy's dependence on fossil fuels. This is one of the primary reasons Appalachia first swung so hard for Dubya in 2000.

It's easy to talk about investing in more sustainable energy such as solar/wind/nuclear and conservationist measures for protection of timber in the abstract as a public good to combat climate change. However, it must be acknowledged there are frictional costs to this type of disruption, and there should be accommodations to transition rural areas which see a fair amount of wealth creation from fossil fuel extraction, refinement/processing, production in power plants, and distribution. Likewise most areas with low population densities tend to be reliant on motor vehicles for transportation as most American infrastructure is designed with the implications of one owning car.

Dems/progressives need to sell these consumers on the transition to electric as well as why a restructuring of energy supply will ultimately produce economic benefit. We will all see different adverse effects of climate change, the problem is its harder to convince the electorate of that while most of those challenges are still abstract. Even worse, it'll be too late to do anything by the time those challenges are concrete.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2021, 11:02:05 AM »

It'd unfortunately require a continuation of an unsustainable energy policy. A major factor in why rural areas as a whole have become more conservative is because of their local economy's dependence on fossil fuels. This is one of the primary reasons Appalachia first swung so hard for Dubya in 2000.

It's easy to talk about investing in more sustainable energy such as solar/wind/nuclear and conservationist measures for protection of timber in the abstract as a public good to combat climate change. However, it must be acknowledged there are frictional costs to this type of disruption, and there should be accommodations to transition rural areas which see a fair amount of wealth creation from fossil fuel extraction, refinement/processing, production in power plants, and distribution. Likewise most areas with low population densities tend to be reliant on motor vehicles for transportation as most American infrastructure is designed with the implications of one owning car.

Dems/progressives need to sell these consumers on the transition to electric as well as why a restructuring of energy supply will ultimately produce economic benefit. We will all see different adverse effects of climate change, the problem is its harder to convince the electorate of that while most of those challenges are still abstract. Even worse, it'll be too late to do anything by the time those challenges are concrete.

Yes, the Dem climate change platform is the most important problem for this. 
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2021, 05:48:11 PM »
« Edited: December 10, 2021, 05:55:37 PM by Statilius the Epicurean »

It'd unfortunately require a continuation of an unsustainable energy policy. A major factor in why rural areas as a whole have become more conservative is because of their local economy's dependence on fossil fuels. This is one of the primary reasons Appalachia first swung so hard for Dubya in 2000.

It's easy to talk about investing in more sustainable energy such as solar/wind/nuclear and conservationist measures for protection of timber in the abstract as a public good to combat climate change. However, it must be acknowledged there are frictional costs to this type of disruption, and there should be accommodations to transition rural areas which see a fair amount of wealth creation from fossil fuel extraction, refinement/processing, production in power plants, and distribution. Likewise most areas with low population densities tend to be reliant on motor vehicles for transportation as most American infrastructure is designed with the implications of one owning car.

Dems/progressives need to sell these consumers on the transition to electric as well as why a restructuring of energy supply will ultimately produce economic benefit. We will all see different adverse effects of climate change, the problem is its harder to convince the electorate of that while most of those challenges are still abstract. Even worse, it'll be too late to do anything by the time those challenges are concrete.

Yes, the Dem climate change platform is the most important problem for this.  

I would say climate and guns. Democratic/liberal rhetoric on guns is corrosive in rural areas and a major policy change between 2012 and 2014/16 was the Sandy Hook massacre in December of 2012 and Democrats raising the salience of gun control legislation again. One underrated reason why Sanders swept rural areas in the 2016 primary was because Hillary's main attack on Bernie from the left was his record on guns, which wasn't exactly pro-NRA but as a Vermont politician not down-the-line progressive.

It's also been one of the biggest drivers of suburban gains the other way for Democrats.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2021, 09:47:44 AM »
« Edited: December 14, 2021, 10:13:12 AM by Person Man »

It'd unfortunately require a continuation of an unsustainable energy policy. A major factor in why rural areas as a whole have become more conservative is because of their local economy's dependence on fossil fuels. This is one of the primary reasons Appalachia first swung so hard for Dubya in 2000.

It's easy to talk about investing in more sustainable energy such as solar/wind/nuclear and conservationist measures for protection of timber in the abstract as a public good to combat climate change. However, it must be acknowledged there are frictional costs to this type of disruption, and there should be accommodations to transition rural areas which see a fair amount of wealth creation from fossil fuel extraction, refinement/processing, production in power plants, and distribution. Likewise most areas with low population densities tend to be reliant on motor vehicles for transportation as most American infrastructure is designed with the implications of one owning car.

Dems/progressives need to sell these consumers on the transition to electric as well as why a restructuring of energy supply will ultimately produce economic benefit. We will all see different adverse effects of climate change, the problem is its harder to convince the electorate of that while most of those challenges are still abstract. Even worse, it'll be too late to do anything by the time those challenges are concrete.

Yes, the Dem climate change platform is the most important problem for this.  

THIS. Even in places like Nebraska or Kansas that aren't oil places like ND or coal places like WV or WY. Just by living in these places, people require a lot more fossil fuels than other people. Ignoring environmental degradation is seen as a kind of subsidy for rural living to many living there.
Logged
Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom
theflyingmongoose
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,294
Norway


Political Matrix
E: 3.41, S: -1.29

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2021, 05:08:16 PM »

ignore them. Let the Republicans take them on, since most of them are voting against their own interests anyway. Focus on minorities/suburban voters, that's what got the House in 2018.
Logged
Kakaobeaver
Newbie
*
Posts: 6
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2022, 12:02:06 PM »

Cutting military spending?
Logged
chalmetteowl
Rookie
**
Posts: 111
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2022, 02:59:04 PM »

ignore them. Let the Republicans take them on, since most of them are voting against their own interests anyway. Focus on minorities/suburban voters, that's what got the House in 2018.

that's a problem. you think you know their interests more than they do. Voting isn't just an economic calculus. At its core it's tribal and people vote to reinforce their families and communities.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2022, 01:20:08 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2022, 02:02:36 PM by Anaphylactic-Statism »

First, wait for Trump to go, because he has a quasi-religious hold on a decent chunk of that demographic, then exploit divisions among his successors and campaign on a solid plan that will improve material conditions for everyone. You can't expect to be winning big with both environmentalists and those whose livelihoods it targets, for example, but you can plainly and clearly explain what sorts of things you'll do for them (retraining, slower timetable on adoption of renewables, whatever). You can't make these goofy Millennial art style videos with some young woman lecturing the viewer on why individuals need to be punished with straw bans, you need to tell the people they're getting screwed over and rally them against those in power. Gretchen Whitmer's "fix the damn roads" is a good example.

Democrats could also benefit from messengers identifying with and identified with trusted groups (petit bourgeoise, military, churches, etc.) to better navigate the post-truth landscape. Elizabeth Warrens won't cut it. Democrats are a diverse party and need to make that clear with a diverse range of messengers, and in the case of rural whites, those messengers can't be Ivory Tower types trying and failing to act country. Finally, sell the Democrat platform from an angle that appeals to that demographic- appeal to their morality, appeal to their love of community, appeal to their desire for stability.
Logged
Vice President Christian Man
Christian Man
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,352
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -2.26

P P P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2022, 10:40:43 PM »
« Edited: January 09, 2022, 10:57:41 PM by The Jeffersonian Populist »

Stop running coastal elitists who look down on them as racist/backwards and instead have them communicate with their wants and needs. The New Deal and Great Society specifically helped the Upper South, and I think that JFK spent a considerable amount of time in this region during his 1960 campaign. While this strategy helped politicians such as Andy Beshar and Joe Manchin, as well as increase Tom Wolf's margin, this strategy is probably outdated and DOA in the post-Trump era, as Trump continues to be seen as a hero in those areas.

It's the inverse of why many New England (and Midwest until recently) Republicans abandoned the GOP beginning in the 1980's. Most people at least in Massachusetts seem to be socially progressive and economically center-right, but feel alienated and abandoned from the largely Southern (& increasingly Midwestern) and evangelical GOP. Regional politicians like Baker, Collins, and Sununu are more popular than the mainstream opponents that they faced for a reason.

I was once a decent fit for the Blue Dog wing of the Dem party and considered myself to be one, but the last few years has made me feel like an alien in the party I once belonged to, which is why I currently support mostly Republicans.
Logged
Aurelius
Cody
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,170
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2022, 05:44:24 AM »
« Edited: January 10, 2022, 06:02:54 AM by Cody »

ignore them. Let the Republicans take them on, since most of them are voting against their own interests anyway. Focus on minorities/suburban voters, that's what got the House in 2018.

Just stop. I could write a whole essay about why, in my case, I am voting very much in my own economic interest (I'm white and I live in a ruralish/exurbanish area that's hard to definitively classify as rural or not-rural) by voting straight ticket R at every election, but I know I'm not going to convince a literal 15 year old whose entire shtick is "LOL dumb racist hicks".

To address the topic, Dems don't need to win rural whites outright to win elections. They just need to avoid losing them by Saddam margins. It would be insane to expect Dems to win rural whites outright, because like blacks with Dems, the interests of rural whites very clearly lie with Republicans. Thus Dem outreach to rural whites is kind of like GOP outreach to blacks - it's about narrowing the margin of defeat - but much more fruitful because rural whites are a MUCH more elastic demographic than blacks. Losing rural whites 75-25 instead of 90-10 would improve Dem margins by 5-6 points in many states. Like many people have pointed out in this thread, local candidates de-emphasizing or taking a different approach than national DNC talking points on fossil fuels and guns would be a big step in the right direction for them.
Logged
Unelectable Bystander
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,098
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2022, 04:03:53 PM »

So do wealthy suburban liberals also vote against their own interests by voting for politicians who will raise their own taxes, or is that allowed because this makes them enlightened?
Logged
Aurelius
Cody
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,170
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2022, 04:50:48 PM »

ignore them. Let the Republicans take them on, since most of them are voting against their own interests anyway. Focus on minorities/suburban voters, that's what got the House in 2018.

Just stop. I could write a whole essay about why, in my case, I am voting very much in my own economic interest (I'm white and I live in a ruralish/exurbanish area that's hard to definitively classify as rural or not-rural) by voting straight ticket R at every election, but I know I'm not going to convince a literal 15 year old whose entire shtick is "LOL dumb racist hicks".

To address the topic, Dems don't need to win rural whites outright to win elections. They just need to avoid losing them by Saddam margins. It would be insane to expect Dems to win rural whites outright, because like blacks with Dems, the interests of rural whites very clearly lie with Republicans. Thus Dem outreach to rural whites is kind of like GOP outreach to blacks - it's about narrowing the margin of defeat - but much more fruitful because rural whites are a MUCH more elastic demographic than blacks. Losing rural whites 75-25 instead of 90-10 would improve Dem margins by 5-6 points in many states. Like many people have pointed out in this thread, local candidates de-emphasizing or taking a different approach than national DNC talking points on fossil fuels and guns would be a big step in the right direction for them.

Every election is like "Hey, I know I don't pay any taxes at all and in fact collect massive amounts of welfare, but the shtick by the far-right about how we need to stop "them gayz from having rightz" and "taking those welfare monies that should go to me". The lunahicks are voting against their own interest.

In my case I pay thousands of tax dollars every year, receive zero welfare or benefits, and am gay myself. Resistance to gay rights is a dead issue in all but the most homogenously evangelical places. The first two parts are true of almost everyone I know around here. Of the two (admitted) welfare cheats I do know personally, one is apolitical and one is a Democrat. Obviously anecdotes are not data, but it is one small data point against your facile claim.

Please, please, please, I beg you, grow up and gain some broader perspective on life. Your rank immaturity is showing.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 12 queries.