Born N Bled Red

Thank you so much for this response. It has provided much clarity. - Before I move on, I challenge you to read the entirety of this response before replying because one thing that has become obviously clear is 1) You do not read responses. You skim them looking for something you can disagree with and then go about attacking that item rather than attempt to understand the full response. If you did read a full response. You would have never made a claim like: 2) "That you describe the left in such a way speaks to your mindset." and "You will not concede that both the Dems and the voters themselves are part of the problem." --- This is categorically and demonstratively false. I have MANY times indicated that the voters vote against their own interests this is a known phenomena. I've never argued against it, but attempted to explain why it is in historic terms. 3. You have strong bias against rural people shaded by the people you know. A bias which you seem to have applied to me, insinuating that I like the people you mention here: "I know too many rural red voters to believe they bear zero responsibility in their plight." Feel that voters bear no responsibility in their plight. You insist this despite amble evidence to the contrary and my statements clearly acknowledging they do. 4. You have not studied electoral maps of the last 40 years as the county level. Counties that have been reliable blue since the 40s swung HARD for Trump. Northeast Iowa is a great example of this. Democrats are losing territory in rural areas NOW. My historical analysis on this is not to explain these recent changes but to identify the events that put the reddening of rural America in motion. And yes! There are still people who blame Carter for the 80s. The boom of the 70s was under Republican leadership. Carter got elected and the bubble popped. BOOM. Republicans then said. "See you had it good, then you voted for a Dem and they screwed everthing up, now we have to come in and fix it." The rode this until they were able to change the narrative to social issues. 5 You seem to have an issue with identifing that there are two problems that we are discussing. - The first is that Dems need to reach rural voters - The second is the plight of the rural population One impacts the other, but they are two separate issues that you seem to have problems with discussing in isolation. The fact that dems need to reach rural voters is an issue only dems can fix. 6. You don't fully understand politics. All politics are local. National politics are local. - The local STATEWIDE ballot measures I cited are 100% evidence that red voters will listen to national Democrats and vote based on issues. That's important because that's the entire premise of this conversation. US Senators are elected at the STATEWIDE level, exactly the level these issues were passed on. In order to enact federal legislation a party must have more US Senators than the other. So Democrats need to win more STATEWIDE elections in rural areas. Same for the house but we have gerrymandering there as well. 7. You haven't argued against the point. That Dems chose, strategically, to not campaign in rural areas, or build party infrastructure, conservatism has been allowed to spread rampantly with no counter voice. This has further eroded dem support in rural areas and enhanced rep talking points. Now even legislation passed by dems that benefit rural america are administered by reps at the local level, robbing dems of any credit. There is no local face of the dem party in rural America. This is akin to the US pullnig all its resources and going home after WW2 rather than engage in the cold war. The US would have simply ceded all that territory to Russia, just as the Dems have ceded all of rural now to the Reps. Because of this decision to abandon rural areas. Democrats have robbed themselves of the ability to build trust LOCALLY that they need to win Nationally among rural voters. So at minimum, you can recognize that Demcrats are culpable in that way. 8) Democrats have a vested interest in reaching out to rural voters. They have to find a way to do so or they will die. Rural voters need elected politicians to enact policy that will benefit themselves. Both are true. Discussing how the democrats achieve their part of that equation is what I have been doing. - This can be done without absolving rural people of the role they played in achieving their current economic status.

Don't press tab, enter as you are typing FYI. Mods can delete.

In light of the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence to support any of your claims (as you instructed others, cite your souces.), or any solution to the issue of your own, yes I am. You should work with the Republicans on repealing Obamacare. Your contributions to this discussion have been just as effective as their contributions to Healthcare reform.

Nebraska Initiative 431, 430, 429- expanded gambling. Opposed by the conservatives in the state, passed by the people by a 2-1 margin Nebraska Initiative 428 - Over 700,000 Nebraskans, or over 83%, voted FOR Initiative 428 in the 2020 election to reform payday loans and cap interest at 36% APR (annual percentage rate) (1, 2)., This landslide victory over predatory lending practices in Nebraska resulted from years of legal research, policy advocacy, and community organizing at the state and national level. - Opposed by Nebraska conservatives passed by the people. Nebraska initiative 427 - Medicaid expansion - Opposed by conservatives, passed with 53% of the vote Nebraska initiative 425 - raise the minimum wage - approved by more than 60% of Nebraska voters Nebraska Initiative 424 - Nebraska Measure 424, the Affirmative Action Initiative, was on the ballot in Nebraska on November 4, 2008, as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the any political subdivision and institutes of higher learning from discriminating against, or giving preferential treatment to any person based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Supporters described the impact of the measure as banning government-sponsored racial preferences and opponents described it as being anti-affirmative action. - Passed with nearly 58% of the vote. So you see, when the actual issues are pushed to the voters. The voters, even in Nebraska where registered republicans outnumber democrats 593954 to 354629, left leaning policies still pass. The problem isn't the voters. Its the messaging, platform, and nonexistence of the party in rural areas, and the lack of quality candidates that leave Democrats uncompetitive.

Dude you're so biased you can't see the forest through the woods. Nothing I have said is wrong. If Dems don't figure out how to appeal to rural voters they lose. Do you like losing? Your entire opposition to my conversation comes down to "they have to say they're sorry first. I refuse to acknowledge anything could be my party's fault." You have provided no factual detail to your argument other than your supposed personal experience. I'm sorry a rural person hurt you. However painting any population with a single broad stroke and thinking they are all the same is wrong. Like I said. If Democrats aren't willing to fight for rural votes they lose. If that's your official position don't bi+ch when Mitch ramrods through a bunch of s#!tty a$$ legislation under his next super majority and further stacks the Supreme Court with judges. You're already waiving the white flag. Take the terms of your surrender with some dignity. I don't want to go down without a fight. Rural is where this battle needs to be fought. Or... since you're so incredibly good at shooting down any proposed solution without a modicum of facts or research. How do you propose Democrats avoid being shut out of power? I'll wait with baited breath as you formulate your response.

You're arguing something I agree with you on. They should be, but aren't by rural voters due to their ability to shift to social talking points. You and I can agree on that till we're blue in the face., but doing so won't change how rural people vote, which is what the Democrats must do. Unfortunately "the Republicans screwed you over too!" Isn't a great campaign slogan.

Dems were in power when it started Reps were in power as it got better. They also managed to shift the narrative to social issues rather than economic in rural areas.

There is a strong reason why Carter was a 1 term president and is derided as a "dumb farmer" by other farmers to this day. The democrats of the day were so bad, they squandered what should have been a seizmic shift in political alignment with the Nixon/Ford scandal. Anyways. At this point that's water under the bridge. Dems lost rural. They gotta figure out how to get it back. Full stop. Blaming the voters won't do it.

Please start on page 262 of the source you cited, starting here. Increased demand for farmland was also fueled by a sharp rise in farm exports in the 1970s, an important component of the decades agricultural prosperity. In 1970, exports of agricultural products were $6.7 billion (approximately 11 percent of U.S. farm production); nine years later they had risen to $31.9 billion (nearly 22 percent of U.S. production).12 This jump in exports was stimulated by increased worldwide global liquidity, rising incomes, and several crop shortfalls in other parts of the world.13 Another reason foreign demand ex- panded was that the cost of U.S. crops declined as a result of a depreciating dollar and re- duced U.S. price-support levels.14 In 1980, the export market for U.S. farm commodities looked so promising that Secretary of Agriculture Robert Bergland declared, The era of chronic overproduction . . . is over.15 So, an embargo would pretty much destroy that demand on exports that stimulated the economy in the 70s no? Yes. OK. - Farming is cyclical on its own, yes. The 80s crisis was created by politics. Not the natural cyclical nature of agriculture.

Can't read this headline without this song popping in my head. Sorry, carry on.

Not sure I agree with Dems left rural America behind. Especially blaming Carter for the 80's farm crisis given he left office in Jan 1981. It was Carter's embargo that began the crash. Trump would have faced similar with China, but he and the Reps wrote checks to farmers to avoid a similar crash. Farmers Race to Feed the World: “Go Big or Get Out” (1970 - 1979) U.S. grain reserves were lowered which in turn raised the price of grain. Poor weather conditions resulted in diminished yields overseas. Demand for U.S. agricultural products exploded. The Soviet Union negotiated a multiyear contract for wheat and feed grains in 1972. In 1973, President Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz responded by calling upon American farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow," and “get big or get out." Producers took his words to heart and the race to feed the world was on. As land values increased, lenders and farmers alike mistakenly concluded the ideal conditions would become the norm. Borrowing became the order of the day and there were plenty of lenders eager to accommodate optimistic farmers. The Federal Reserve changes their lending policies to hold the line on inflation. The Fed's actions made the cost of borrowing money prohibitive for all Americans. But the effect on farm families and rural bankers was especially severe. In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and President Jimmy Carter enacts a grain embargo stopping shipments of grain to the Soviet Union. The embargo wasn’t lifted until 1980 when President Ronald Reagan took office. Iowa farmers struggled throughout the 1980s in an attempt to save their family farms. It took protests down the streets of Washington D.C. and loud rumblings of discontent from all corners of the country for the federal government to step in and change agricultural and lending policies to help out the Iowa farmer. The Farm Crisis of the 1980s | Iowa PBS

Has it been decided he can't call the right plays at the right time and simultaneously doesn't run or pass the ball enough yet?

Haha... last cycle they waited until what's his name lost the Republican primary, then begged him to run Independent as a counter to Ricketts, and then offered the resources of the Dem party if he would fly his name under their banner. - Not hearing anything by now is no surprise. I also said I was registered a D. Just cuz you're registered a certain way doesn't mean you're in the loop, or care to be.

There is a third option in Brett Lindstrom as well. I think he's trying to set himself up for a LT Gov gig, or appointment though. Will the Dems have one of their own this time? Or do they plan on taking another failed, but somehow reasonable, Republican and throwing the "D" behind their name just to have someone on the ballot?

Ok, quick 5 minutes here. I'll try to boil this down. The Issue 1) Democrats need to find a way to compete in rural America or they will be locked out of power in the house and senate, and state legislatures across the nation. ------ I think we all agree on this yes? The History 2) Both Dem and Rep economic policy has left rural America behind since the new deal. Worse yet, Decocrats under Carter failed to help the rural economy during the 80s farm crisis. 3) Dems have not fought to maintain or reclaim rural areas of the electoral map since the 60s choosing instead to focus on urban and minority voters. They were fine with losing rural until recently when gerrymandering and the Senate have made getting shut out of power a real possibility. At the same time, it became en vogue for coastal democrats to chide rural people for not understanding economics and voting against their own self interest, while also leaning into the redneck racist stereotype. 4) As the Dems chose, strategically, to not campaign in rural areas, or build party infrastructure, conservatism has been allowed to spread rampantly with no counter voice. This has further eroded dem support in rural areas and enhanced rep talking points. Now even legislation passed by dems that benefit rural america are administered by reps at the local level, robbing dems of any credit. There is no local face of the dem party in rural America. This is akin to the US pullnig all its resources and going home after WW2 rather than engage in the cold war. The US would have simply ceded all that territory to Russia, just as the Dems have ceded all of rural now to the Reps. 5) Rural people do not see a bill like Build Back Better as a rural benefit. The past 40 years have shown rural people that when bills that addresses housing, poverty, or infrastructure is passed at the national level, the bulk of those funds on a per capita basis are directed to urban areas. So rural people HAVE seen less benefit. 6) (Disclosure, this is a pet peeve of mine and something I have not addressed before) Politicians think they are so damn clever when they name bills like Build Back Better. It makes the bill less tangible and makes it that much easier to paint for opponents. This is part of the reason Reps have built such resistance to BBB in rural areas. It is a nebulous, intangible, idea. Go talk to rural people about the actual policies of the law and they will be super receptive. 7) Republicans are able to neglect rural economic issues because they offer the hot button talking points, guns, abortion, and fear. It is so much easier to manipulate economically unstable people by fear. Republicans actually have a vested interest in not solving rural economic issues. Solutions 8) To now try to compete in rural areas. Dems have to understand rural Americans. They have to recognize that yes, rural has been getting the shaft for 40 years, that yes rural people are skeptical of any bill that is "good for everyone." They need to appeal directly to rural voters. There is no way that a bill named, "Spending Rural tax dollars on Giving Rural People Access to Broadband Internet," does not gain rural support. The Affordable Care Act could have been branded Health Insurance for America's Farmers and Entrepreneurs in rural areas to gain better support. Messaging matters. 9) They need to counter Rep social messaging with tangible economic policy and messaging. Combat "They'll take your guns (patently false)," with "We're giving all rural communities $500,000 to improve their community school facilities." ETC. Real, tangible, economic policy solution. That is designed and marketed specifically for rural people and communities. I've provided other examples in another post. 10) They need to immediately invest DNC dollars in rebuilding rural party infrastructure. Start in places most recently lost like Eastern Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. Identify potential candidates, support them, train them in leadership, elevate them within their state. Make them present, make them visible, make them competent in the roles they fill. Provide a local face to the party that can connect with voters rather than being the scary coastal left wing boogey man. Find rural leaders. The republican side has huge amounts of rural infrastructure to do this. Summary 11) Reclaiming rural America and the populist movement will be difficult, it will take resources, and it will take actual, visible, economic results. It will be costly. But this is what must be done to compete. The alternative is the democrats remain locked out of power and are unable to enact change or prevent harmful change to the country. Which cost is greater? (Disclaimer) I've provided factual data, sources, and representation of all my claims throughout this conversation. If you care to rebut any of my claims, please provide more than "I spoke with my inbred redneck cousin over the holidays. He got drunk and pretended to be Groot, except instead of saying, "I am Groot," to everything, he said "Let's Go Brandon TO EVERY SINGLE THING SAID." Fortunately, not all rural people are like that.

Heir apparent to an aging Whipple? OC in a year or two?

I didn't watch the movie the Perfect Storm, but I bet it was about tornados.

Depth??? No, we don't need depth. If a guy isn't a full time starter he should be shown the door so we can get the next stud out of the transfer portal or a recruit. Development and depth doesn't matter anymore. Just go read the "who leaves after the season thread."

That doesn't mean anything. Last year we had fans that definitely thought McCaffery should've been our starter. This year, Smothers (to a lesser extent.)

I appreciate this response. I have a comment, but am busy now. I just didn't want to leave you hanging.

So, are we going to take Chubba too?

Dude, I posted 3 ads last night that did exactly what I claimed they did, one was Trump, two were Biden. They shared stories of minorities who benefitted by policies and actions of elected officials as part of their campaign messaging. I provided two examples of democratic Presidential candidates demeaning nonurban voters. You and Knapplc's misunderstanding of my posts and repeatedly asking me for something I never suggested existed in the first place serves only to detract from the greater conversation, which is that "Democrats need to own their failures in rural America and find a way to compete or they will be unable to enact the change we all seek, let alone prevent changes the right would see made." If me pointing out your intent to derail the conversation or your misunderstanding of the content of my posts has in someway offended you well, that's on you. (Holy crap. I am a democrat. My failure in messaging is your fault. See???)

Nebraska's success on left leaning ballot initiatives would suggest otherwise. This success, as I said, is in spite of the fact that Nebraska has not had a Democratic Governor since 1999.

- Check you're reading comprehension. In the above. I never said Democrats are sharing or celebrating "welfare queen" stories. In keeping with the conversation it was pretty clear that I was discussing Republican talking points, and "Democrats unknowingly reinforcing this narrative when they share their success stories that benefit urban minorities." Which clear indicates that the Welfare Queen Narrative was presented by another party. I further ellucidated this morning, that "This (the use of minority anecdotes of examples of positive policy impact) is meant to widen the party's base, to create broad appeal and be more inclusive and indicate who left wing policies benefit the "normal person." However, when paired with Right winged maker vs. taker talking points, going to the same audience, it can also have the unintended effect of amplifying the republican message. Because when a Rural Red voter see that minority person, the rural red voter does not see themselves reflected in that that story. They see benefits going to someone else, who doesn't look like them, doesn't talk like them, and doesn't live where they do." Now if you could let this Red Herring Fallacy Go, and focus on the actual conversation that'd be great. Oh- and just so I don't have to explain myself later- The red herring fallacy is a logical fallacy where someone presents irrelevant information in an attempt to distract others from a topic that’s being discussed, often to avoid a question or shift the discussion in a new direction.

The point Im trying to make is that the money and effort it takes to campaign in those areas is extreme. - what is more costly, investing in rural areas or being locked out of power? If it's not effective explain Beto's success in Texas. Democrats abandoned rural and in doing so has allowed conservatism to spread and conservative messaging to have a greater and undue impact. Their failure to enact true policy change when given the opportunity has further enforced this and allowed culture war issues to hold more weight than they should because there is no economic solution being offered by either party for the issues rural areas face. Those voters will only be won over via culture war issues. Nothing else matters. - This is 100 percent false and boils 22 million people into a single derogatory stereotype that conveniently allows you to dismiss the absolute failure democratic platforms and messaging have had with gain traction in rural America. - If this is your excuse with rural white Americans' why are Democrats also struggling to hold onto the Hispanic vote? Surely the DNC and democratic party apparatus cannot be at fault here either. Right?