The rural Republican trend is over...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

...just as long as the Democrats nominate a candidate who fights the right battles (i.e., economic rather than social issues).

You didn't hear much about social issues in the Kentucky governor election, and the Democrats ended up doing a lot better than expected in rural counties. Of course they did worse than expected in affluent suburbs, but I don't really care about that. If not for the suburbs, the GOP would have lost.

[JNB]

  From the map I saw, Flecther did quite well in rural westren KY, a area that used to be 80% Democratic by registartion. I agree, on the local level and for non federal offices, it is easier to avoid social issues and focus on economic issues. One the other hand, federal offices are a different story, and it is easier to link Democrats to the national party. When the focus is taken off economic issues and put on social issues such as guns, race and abortion, the Democrat almost allways loses in a rural area.

[NorthernDog]

You didn't hear much about social issues in the Kentucky governor election, and the Democrats ended up doing a lot better than expected in rural counties.

Umm, wasn't this the first Republican governor elected in Ky in over 30 years?  They must have done something right.  As far as social issues, the Republicans will gladly bring them up where they cut in their favor.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Umm, wasn't this the first Republican governor elected in Ky in over 30 years?

Only because of suburban areas. Again. if you don't count the suburbs, he would have been toast.

Of course, if not for the suburbs in 1988, America would have had a President Dukakis.

[Ryan]

You didn't hear much about social issues in the Kentucky governor election, and the Democrats ended up doing a lot better than expected in rural counties. Of course they did worse than expected in affluent suburbs, but I don't really care about that. .

err so??? ?? Dude whether you like it or not suburban America is the fastest growing segment and it IS tending Republican.

I really dont get what you mean when you say U "dont care" about the suburbs and <If not for the suburbs, the GOP would have lost>??

The fact is they DID vote GOP and the GOP DID win. Unless you have evidence that this will change; I dont think its a great democratic victory to marginally regain rural votes and lose even more in suburban areas.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I dont think its a great democratic victory to marginally regain rural votes and lose even more in suburban areas.

It's a moral victory.

[Ryan]

I dont think its a great democratic victory to marginally regain rural votes and lose even more in suburban areas.

It's a moral victory.

LOL okay dude....whatever does it for you . You can have the moral victory just so long as the GOP keeps winning the elections

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I agree with bandit... the rural GOP trend does seem to be in decline somewhat, however they are also doing better in the 'burbs.

I also agree that it's a moral victory

[JNB]

   Why did Flecter win Westrebn KY? What did he win 5 of the 6 congressional seats in KY if the rural areas are trending Democratic again?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Appalachian part of KY is mostly in KY-5 and is always out-voted by the rest of the district.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He didn't.

[JNB]

  Can you post the numbers then. The only congressional district that Flecher lost was the Louisville based district from what I read, the other 5 were won by Flecther.

[DarthKosh]

  Can you post the numbers then. The only congressional district that Flecher lost was the Louisville based district from what I read, the other 5 were won by Flecther.

The only seat Fletcher lost was Northrups.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

He lost the old 7th District (which should have never been abolished).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Which counties were in the old 7th?

[JNB]

 The 7th district is the district KY lost after the 1990 census. This district has not existed since the 92 eletions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I know that... but where was it?

[JNB]

 In the southeast of the state I believe, I have not seen a pre 92 congressional map if the area in quite some time.

[minionofmidas]

Thought you guys might appreciate a laugh.

What about?
Good thread, actually.
Not to forget the fact that many rural areas swung back somewhat to the Dems in 2004, and many suburban areas that had swung heavily Dem in 2000 swung back Republican.

[J. J.]

Thought you guys might appreciate a laugh.

What about?
Good thread, actually.
Not to forget the fact that many rural areas swung back somewhat to the Dems in 2004, and many suburban areas that had swung heavily Dem in 2000 swung back Republican.

The rural Democratic swing in the 2004 election can be though into the dustbin of history with the "massive" youth vote that "swung" the election to Kerry.

[AudmanOut]

Interesting...

[Annatar]

Pretty interesting thread, fascinating how people saw trends in the early 2000's.

[Flyersfan232]

...just as long as the Democrats nominate a candidate who fights the right battles (i.e., economic rather than social issues).

You didn't hear much about social issues in the Kentucky governor election, and the Democrats ended up doing a lot better than expected in rural counties. Of course they did worse than expected in affluent suburbs, but I don't really care about that. If not for the suburbs, the GOP would have lost.

this post age well.

[RINO Tom]

All you need to know about the OP is that he would later go on to describe Republicans in Kentucky as "only the rural romp areas," LOL.  A truly admirable hack.

[DINGO Joe]

The rural trend was over for Fletcher, as he got obliterated in rural areas in 2007 (of course, he lost the suburbs too).  Then. the Ds had the audacity to nominate a black man for President.