Born N Bled Red

Beto gets it. He's present. He is engaging rural Texans where they are at. There is a reason he is competing in Texas, and it isn't just because of changing Demographics. This is what needs to be done in all rural states. Let me ask you this. If you're from Nebraska, who is going to be the Democratic candidate for governor? In rural areas the DNC has given up. They don't even try. There is no rural strategy. I proposed a solution. Democrats need to make rural a PRIORITY. Actual policies that need to be enacted- Rural affordable housing initiatives need to be expanded- this includes construction and rehabilitation loans. The government needs to step in and provide rural broadband internet and open rural economies to e-commerce. One thing I haven't mentioned is that a greater number of rural individuals identify as entrepreneurs/ self employed. There need to be greater tax benefits for rural entrepreneurs (small business) and affordable training provided to train up the rural workforce. The training needs to be able to be accomplished as part of a government funded employee benefit, not placed at the expense of an employer. Childcare centers need to be established and strengthened. - Meals on wheels should be expanded to provide in home daycares with quality meals rather than place the onus of preparing those meals on the provider. There needs to be a RURAL infrastructure package that prioritizes projects like 50 year hold that residents have put up with for HWY 275. Similarly there should be funding for improved rural school buildings and systems and yes, there should be subsidies for rural grocery stores and medical services. And the democrats need to take credit for getting these passed. When it comes to combatting the messaging. There is no rural democratic campaign strategy. They need to be present in rural communities. They need to go to places like Norfolk and West Point and Chadron. Not just stop at Epply and say "welp I've been to Nebraska." They need to develop a rural strategy to identify potential democratic candidates for local offices and then provide leadership education and training to grow those individuals into electable candidates. They then need to support the election of these candidates in order to have local representation in rural areas. By not growing candidates and local faces of the party they are allowing conservatism to spread one local position at a time. They are also not enabling party members to get the leadership experience and exposure necessary for those individuals to grow into statewide or national level candidates. In many rural places, positive democratically enacted policy is overseen by Republican administrators. As I've seen working across the nation, people associate programs that benefit them with the local administrators, not the national players. So democratic policies that benefit rural people are still associated with republican leaning individuals. Somehow that needs to be addressed, through better marketing maybe. In short. In order to combat the conservative wave sweeping rural America, Democrats need to be present in rural America. They need to listen to the concerns and enact real economic policy that will relieve rural poverty, income inequality, and education deficits. Rather than showing up at a coal mine saying coal is dead, and you can all find new jobs somewhere else. They need to say, "Your local coal plant my be closing, but I've already recruited a new wind factory to come to your town that will offer you employment and has agreed to pay an average of $2 an hour more than the coal company. As anyone who has studied Maslov's Hierarchy of needs can attest. Not one person is capable of understanding or caring about the greater good, if they are worried about their own families, food, and shelter. Rural Red voters are not backwater hicks that hate minorities. They have just been let down by a system that has not helped them elevate to a place of security.

Let's look at this logically shall we. Fact: The red electoral map is GROWING. This suggests that democrats are actively losing individuals that once fell under their Big Tent. Political ideologies do not go from Democratic voting to the extreme right wing in 3 or 4 election cycles. This means the democrats are failing at retaining their rural voters, let alone trying to grow a base in rural areas. Plain and simple. It cannot get any clearer than that.

Yeah, so enact policy to limit political gerrymandering. Wait- you need rural states to get on board with that to enact that change don't you. Keep playing that fiddle. All is lost, woe is me. We can't compete.--- Find a way or become obsolete that is what the democrats are facing, and I'd rather not live in a fascist state.

Thanks @Guy Chamberlin the claim is that not only do they bear some responsiblity for losing the populist mantle and letting Republicans win the messaging battle. But also that it is their absolutely their problem to find a solution to, if they want to continue to engage in policy making.

The New York Times bestseller, praised as "hilariously funny . . . the only way to understand why so many Americans have decided to vote against their own economic and political interests" -(Molly Ivins) Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans. A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People. - This is the description of the book on Amazon- Because ---- HAHHAHA F*ck yeah. It's hilarious to laugh at the suffering of 22 million Americans that control more than half the senate seats rather than engage them in conversation and try to understand why your elitist, condescending messaging is not gaining traction with that population. And yet you wonder why those same rural people want to give the finger to the people who write this drivel.

Interesting chart. I have no way of knowing, but it would be interesting to find out how much of it is based on the offense run vs. incremental rule changes designed to benefit the offense. Such as new penalties added or penalties that have been done away with or are policed less well (holding, cough, holding) that provide offenses with more opportunities to score.

Then....what's the problem? BNBR's whole point was that this is a big problem and the Democrats need to fix it. So the only solution is to never run ads targeted towards or featuring minorities? --- They have to appeal to both. - They aren't. Seems like another point of evidence that this is a Republican responsibility and not a Democratic one. --- Sure is, as long as the Dems never want control of the house or senate again- not to mention state legislatures that control redistricting- but yup, write off all those uneducated, bassackwards, redneck, gun loving, bible hugging, cousin marrying, hicks. Urbanites have it all figured out.

Could there be some racism there... sure. But it's also human nature. People are drawn to people who look like them. I know sales people who will go so far as to match hair styles and facial hair styles to people they are going in to make a pitch to. People who wear contacts normally will wear glasses on the days they pitch to someone who wears glasses. It's human psychology, not necessarily racist in nature. And yes, populism takes root in rural America. As someone else maybe @Guy Chamberlin pointed out. That is one thing Trump got right and Bernie too. Rural people are hurting. They hunger for someone who will speak with them not at them, and speak for them not about them. Democrats fail at this even when proposing legislation that will lift rural people. It is a messaging issue in some instances. Obamacare for example could have been sold better to rural people, particularly to farmers as a rural safety net program. Parts of the BBB plan could be as well. - It's not, because democrats also can't afford to alienate their urban base. Gerrymandering in the house and the structure of the Senate now mean they have to appeal to both urban and rural. This isn't a should they or shouldn't they, we are past that. THEY HAVE to appeal to rural voters or they will be shut out of power. This is the hard cold reality. If you want to appeal to the rural voter. You have to understand their psychology. The understanding of that phycology is SEVERLY lacking. This was widely acknowledged in the wake of Trump's win. I had national columnists, think tanks, and research firms reaching out left and right asking how they could learn more about rural psychology and how Trump could happen. For a few months, then it became easier to outrage at everything Trump did and revert back to the REDNECK RACIST RURAL HICK stereotype and blame the voters for the failings of the party and its lack of traction with rural people. Knapplc said, "If rural red voters are willing to turn their backs on Democrats and keep them turned for decades because of a few random comments, that's more a them problem than a candidate problem, right? The alternative is that a candidate can never speak a harsh truth. Rural Americans claim to value that." This is a Rural Blue voter speaking a harsh truth. Maybe urban blue voters can't handle it, but without rural voters, the Democrats will lose the opportunity to enact policy or change regardless how many crusty old Red voters fall off the voting rolls.

For the last 20 years, it has been my job to solicit stories from individuals (almost always minorities) get them to agree to share those stories in print, digital, and yes video form in support of democratic candidates and left leaning policy. The DACA kids who just want to feel like they belong in the country they know as home, the poor urban city individual who went bankrupt due to healthcare, the wounded African American Veteran who supports a democratic candidate. The Native American person who has seen nearly their entire family fall victim to heart disease and diabetes due to the loss of agricultural knowledge and access to grocery stores and super markets. It goes on and on. - I KNOW THIS BECAUSE ITS MY DAMN JOB lol. - I could write you the script in my sleep. This 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.

LMAO dude. The two I shared that were put out to pursuade Latinos to vote for Biden fit exactly the description I stated. This article showed that using this type.of campaign messaging is common place. In just once cycle, a total "of 243 ads from the 2014 U.S. senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns." Containing this kind of anecdotal story telling were analyzed. If the idea that when Democrats use minority and inner city individuals in these anecdotal ads to support their candidacy or policy proposals, it further alienates rural white voters, who feel left behind by current efforts to address poverty and income inequality, is too hard for you to comprehend you can just say so.

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/storytelling-may-make-political-ads-powerful-persuaders-0/

"Studies show that most Americans reject facts when they are confronted with them if those facts don’t reinforce their prejudices." Great quote... https://www.reuters.com/article/idIN210275415820140414

You just had another poster confirm this has been the case for more than 100 years. You asked for an example of the videos I described, I provided 3. If you chose to remain ilinformed at this point, its on you. If you're unwilling to do your own research, for all your claimed enlightenment, you're just the opposite side of the same coin as those rural voters you've shown such disdain for.

Now you're being disingenuous. Go watch these. They are examples. Not the best. But its what you're getting. I don't have the time appease your need to not use google. If this doesn't suffice, you can google sources that explain that the ads I'm speaking about don't exist https://thehill.com/latino/571163-exclusive-pro-biden-group-launches-hispanic-ad-campaign

Just like this, only instead of getting out of prison, the received benefits from some social service. C'mon man.

Yeah, sorry, I think I'm going to keep ignoring it. I think you know what I'm talking about, and are just being difficult. Just like you were about democratic elected official mocking rural voters. (The google search for the Obama quote was like 15 seconds.) I'll let you do the google search this time, bud. You've made a great series of statements throughout our discussion. Would you care to provide sources for each of yours, as I have mine? This has been a good discussion. Maybe you've learned a little? If not, it's been fun.

I do think there are several things in the Build Back Better Plan that is going to benefit rural. Rural Broadband, I believe is one of them. It's not being sold as a rural program though. - Messaging. The second part of your post is exactly what I am referring to. The racist "slur" are taking our jobs. Is just that, the "slur" has taken on the role of the mysterious "they". You ask them about Jose who lives down the street? --- "Oh no, Jose, he's a good guy. Hard worker, has kids that go to school with mine, ect." The slur is used as the "bogeyman" the unknown, the place to lay blame for the reason they/ their community is struggling economically.

They have. Obamacare is a fantastic example that would benefit every American. So is Single Payer. So is ending reliance on fossil fuels. What you're pretending, and what is patently untrue, is that rural voters will soberly judge these proposals and give Dems a fair chance. They don't. ---- Obamacare yes, does benefit rural people. But not specifically. Ending reliance on fossil fuels may economically damage some rural people. ---- Nebraska voters have supported very specific ballot initiatives that lean primarily on the left side of the field, even though they haven't elected a democratic governor since the mid 90 It's really interesting that every single thing you're proposing is from the Dems to the rural voters. There's no responsibility from anyone else. -- If they want a chance in the Senate- Dems need rural. This was never about singing kumbaya and everyone get along. This is about the real possibility that Republican gerrymandering and Senate can and will shut the Democrats our of power, if they don't make inroads in rural states. --- Dems can't and shouldn't sell their soul to the lowest common denominator, so instead, they have to offer something that currently isn't. Real economic change is what they can offer.

Man, if you're telling me, you've never seen an ad for a candidate that has an anecdote, quote, or personal message from someone who had personally benefitted from a social program and support XYZ candidate, because without them, I would have never gotten my college diploma/ graduated high school, etc. I'm going to flag that as pure . Like I said. Even the most racist of people I knew 20 years ago now have family that have married minorities, have worked alongside minorities have friends that are minorities, etc. You might be accepting it as racism on its face, but dig a littler deeper. It boils down to economic stability and the idea that someone is getting a benefit that they did not, not their race. I'm not saying there is no such thing as a racist. I'm saying that for the vast majority of rural people, who vote red its not because they are racist and democrats aren't. Nope, democrats have to offer better solutions to bigger problems. - Democrats don't do that for rural Americans now.

That's why you've got to start local. People still vote for people they know. The conservative side has many organizations that do this. Farm Bureau is huge in rural areas for growing conservative minded leaders and getting them into roles of prominence. Democrats have no such mechanism.

I would have to see these campaign ads that celebrate success stories of welfare queens. Whose ads do this? National ads or local? That seems utterly bizarre - but I'll admit I haven't had cable in years and don't watch commercials. --- National - rural local races generally don't run ads, if they even have a democratic challenger at all. The weird thing is that being angry at the success of minorities isn't seen as a form of racism. It's an us/them mentality. How is that not racism? ---- The anger isn't driven by their race. You can be envious of someone of a different color for reasons other than their color. The us/them is urban/rural and the idea, they got help, I didn't. And if these sentiments are the talk of the town, and around the country (per your testament), why don't these angry rural voters take their concerns to the people they actually vote for? Republicans can get rural broadband done. Why blame Democrats? ---- Like I said, Republicans don't have to accomplish anything economically. They have the social issues (abortion, guns, immigration) and they have the added bonus of angering people who are seen as taunting rural voters. To me, that's all (false) messaging that Democrats can't possibly overcome. It's a caricature, and rural voters have wholly bought into it. ---- It can be overcome- the Democrats just have to want to prioritize it and then follow through.

That is why the below part of what I wrote is SOOOO important to any hope democrats have of competing in rural areas. Without local representation, a local face to the party, it is all too easy for the republicans to label democrats as the boogey man. There needs to be local, visible, competent party affiliation in rural areas, or there will be no way to combat the narrative. They need to develop a rural strategy to identify potential democratic candidates for local offices and then provide leadership education and training to grow those individuals into electable candidates. They then need to support the election of these candidates in order to have local representation in rural areas. By not growing candidates and local faces of the party they are allowing conservatism to spread one local position at a time. They are also not enabling party members to get the leadership experience and exposure necessary for those individuals to grow into statewide or national level candidates.

Like I said, I live in rural America, a town of 600 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart. I interact with ALOT of rural Red Voters and have a very sore tongue somedays as a result. That said- most rural voters work alongside minority members everyday at packing houses, feedlots, manufacturing plants and the like across the nation. They have friends, co-workers, colleagues and bosses that are minorities. - It's not racism itself that drives the mindset. At this point, most see minority workers in their communities as being in the same boat they they are. - What they are angry at are the "welfare queen," stereotypes they are shown on TV. Unfortunately Democrats unknowingly reinforce this narrative when they share their success stories that benefit urban minorities. And every national Democratic campaign does this. To rural voters, as I've said, this is further proof Dems don't care about their struggles. It could almost be seen as taunting.

"Deplorables," applies here as well. - Also- the intent doesn't necessarily matter, as you know. It's how it was sold to the masses. Obama said poor white folk get bitter and cling to their bibles and guns and then Hillary called them deplorable. - This is the mindset.