Born N Bled Red

"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.

I will add as well, that training needs to be provided in rural communities on fundraising and grant writing. Urban areas have a plethora of trained individuals that know exactly where to look and how to apply to the full gamut of private and government funding sources. Rural areas are at an inherent disadvantage in these processes and I believe this to be a least partly to blame for the disparity in per capita spending between urban and rural areas.

Yes, it started out as a conversation of trying to understand the mindset of a rural Red voter and why democrats are losing ground in rural areas. Per capita spending to address issues of poverty and income inequality significantly favors urban areas over rural both with public and private dollars. Which has lead to bitterness in rural individuals and a hopelessness that positive economic change will come at the hands of either party. This has allowed republican messaging around social issues to take a greater hold. My premise is that the only way the left will be able to counter Republican social messaging at this point is by providing real economic policy specifically geared to address rural poverty and infrastructure. - This can not be another "good for the whole country policy either. Rural is at a disadvantage when it comes to those types of policies and those dollars are thusly directed primarily to Urban areas. @knapplc 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.

I've also pushed back on the implication (yet to be supported) that policy-making Democrats openly deride rural voters. Obama was caught in an uncharacteristic moment of loose language. Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

They are voting on pent up frustration over neither party addressing their economic needs. Trump, Gaetz, etc appeal to them as an FU to the democrats who proudly present urban poverty to riches stories as successful policy measures. The rural voter doesn't see themselves in that story, it doesn't appeal to them, and if their own economic situation was not bettered during the policy's term, they actually see it as an insult. This is where some of the rural anger comes from when discussing the left.

It is true. As I've shared time and again, governement spending on rural community building, proverty and income inequality initiatives is out paced by urban spending at 2:1 per capita ratio over decades, under certain administrations it was as much as 5:1. Philanthropic spending on those same initiatives is a 4:1 ratio in favor of impoverished urbanites. They have been left behind by the system. You are correct in that it has been both parties failing rural America. Not just the Dems. The Republicans however, do not need to address the economic issues, because they offer social issues. When things get bad enough economically, rural votes for a democrat. Said democrat fails to address rural poverty and the social issues become an even greater selling point to rural people. I also agree that there have been policies passed to raise everyone's boat, Obamacare for example. However there are also specific initiatives made to benefit impoverished innner cities. There has been nothing to specifically target impoverished rural communities.

"You cited the Civil Rights movement, and blamed that on Democrats' loss of the South - that's actually a good thing. Your party should not kowtow to racists, nor should it encourage them. It should be in the business of ending racism. Sadly, Republicans have abrogated that responsibility and leaned in to racism as a wedge issue. " - Agreed- but here again you are falling victim to your own prejudice. The remainder of my paragraph citing the Civil rights movement stated, "From this point (the civil rights movement," forward Democrats have been using the excuse of the "backwoods redneck," to write off any rural person that does not vote for them." You do this in your very response. "Rural voters turned away from Democrats because they espoused social justice, economic fairness and a broad tent. Rural voters don't share those views. That's to their detriment. Are there racists in rural America- yup. Are there racists in urban America - Yup. Rural voters turned away from democrats because the democrats version of economic fairness - hasn't been fair to rural people (from their perspective). And the facts that I've shared bear that out. I'll reiterate what I said before. Their vote is both a vote in favor of the Red outrage talking points and a FU to the ones who left them behind while helping similarly situated minority and urban individuals. (True or not, their perception is their reality until proven otherwise.)

Exactly what you said you were rejecting. This is a problem with democrats, their economic platforms and messaging leave the rural voter behind and they are directly responsible for the "reddening" of rural America.

Dude..... that's a response I'd expect from @Archy1221 No offense @Archy1221

Or- you know, you could do the googling I suggested yesterday... We agree on a lot, Knapp. Your closed mindedness on this issue is interesting to me. What's more in spite of all the evidence I've shared, you still reject this premise on its face, without providing any contradictory information. I understand, it is far easier to accept the stereotype that has been created that anyone outside of urban areas is a just backasswards, doesn't understand economics, and thumps the bible with their gun. However, if you want to understand why the left is losing rural America (and greater portions of rural America with each election) you need to get past that. Or more eloquently put here, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/12/08/the-rural-urban-divide-furthers-myths-about-race-and-poverty-concealing-effective-policy-solutions/ "As we demonstrate here and expand upon in a new research series, dividing our nation into such a binary has immediate, lived consequences for people living in all corners of America. The binary-based narrative is not only inaccurate, but has potential to inflict real harm in four distinct ways. First, it prioritizes the political concerns of an imagined, white rural monolith and erases the needs of rural people of color during a pandemic which is disproportionately devastating rural Black, Latino or Hispanic, and Native American communities. Second, it furthers misconceptions about rural economies which devalue the role of rural places in American (and urban) prosperity. Third, it propagates a myth of place-based poverty that erases people living in a range of high-poverty geographies, justifying oversimplified antipoverty policies. And finally, the binary-based narrative obscures effective policy and practice solutions for rural economic development that embrace the interdependence of rural and urban economic futures." Another good read. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/rural-white-voters-trump/597160/ This one is great. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/debunking-three-myths-about-rural-america And another. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/03/five-myths-about-rural-america/

That's per capital, man. A person in an urban area benefits from 4 dollars of philanthropic spending for every one dollar a rural person benefits from. Again, that statement was made to support the general argument that rural Americans are left behind be the current systems to address poverty and income inequality in the nation. - Philanthropic giving is part of that system. YUP!!! Cuz a REPUBLICAN wrote, what's the matter with Kansas......

Nah, this is defeatist sentiment that is basically ceding the senate to the right for the forseeable future. FDR galvanized the rural population for the democratic party with the New Deal. In the 60's with the Civil Rights movement, Democrats started losing rural southerners. From this point forward Democrats have been using the excuse of the "backwoods redneck," to write off any rural person that does not vote for them. In addition the monetization of electoral campaigns led to a bigger bank for buck in marketing and advertising in larger communities. In the 80's under Carter the democrats did nothing to address the Farm Crisis, things got better under Reagan, then Bush Sr. This enhanced the decline of rural democrats. The lack of any kind of policy for rural americans has doomed the Democrats in rural areas ever since. I agree rural voters are more inclined to be persuaded by culture war issues and have said as much. There has been little to no research that I have seen to understand the "why," behind it. - The why is that rural Americans truly believe economically, it does not matter what party is in power. They are not a large enough voting block to matter. Resources will always be overwhelmingly directed to urban areas to serve greater populations not just at a percentage of the whole, but at at huge per capita difference. If there are no solutions being offered economically for the issues rural American's face, that leaves only social issues to vote for. Provide real economic solutions to the issues rural Americans face and the social issues won't be nearly as prevalent. This, however is something no one has done since FDR. The caricature Democrats have created around the rural white voters is no different than the one Republicans created in the 80's and 90s of the urban welfare queen. It is a way to pass off their policy failings, placing the blame on the voters rather than the party and its platform.

2 Things. 1) you are reading the quote about charitable giving in relation to the current convo about cost of living. That is out of order. That statement was made to support the initial discussion that rural red voters feel left behind by existing efforts to address poverty and income equality. Charitable giving is part of that effort. 2) If you would be unhappy with a single mother living on Welfare using her welfare dollars to pay for an item, they are not true cost of living and skew stats toward a higher urban cost of living. Urban leads in categories most rural people really can't afford. Personal Insurance and Pensions ( INVESTMENT) Education (INVESTMENT) Housing (INVESTMENT) Food Away From Home (Luxury) Apparel and Services (Luxury) Even if you now try to say yes, a pension and going out to eat should count as cost of living. An 18% higher cost of living does justify a 4:1 discrepancy in charitable dollars being invested in urban vs. Rural areas. Or that Highlights of This Study •Approximately 80 percent of the landmass in the United States is classified as rural. 55 million Americans live in rural areas, some 22 percent of the total U.S. population. •In rural areas, median family income is 25 percent lower, and the poverty rate 28 percent higher than in metro areas. Rural counties make up 95 percent of the persistent poverty counties in the United States. •Congress, in its funding of the one federal department with responsibility for rural development – the United States Department of Agriculture – has given priority to farming support programs over rural development. Funds earmarked for rural development consistently remained at about 2 to 5 percent of that department’s total actual budget outlays between 1996 and 2002. •USDA acknowledges that farm payments are not a substitute for rural economic development policy. (USDA’s Agricultural Outlook/October 2000 article, “How Important Are Farm Payments to the Rural Economy”) •Roughly one out of every three dollars of federal rural development funding came from other federal departments and agencies. But in terms of overall federal spending, community development in rural counties accounted for only one-tenth of one percent of total per capita funding from 1994 to 2001, significantly less than the population figures might warrant. •From 1994 through 2001 the federal government spent more than two times (and sometimes up to five times) as much per capita on metropolitan community development as it did on rural community development. https://www.wkkf.org/~/media/BBDB12471BCA4802898B80658C283442.ashx

@RedDenver Here is what was discussed for Cost of Living.

This is what I posted about food in relation to cost of living. Food insufficiency You're either expending fuel to get it or have delivered. The price at Sam's Club, Hy-vee or Walmart is the same whether you have to drive it an hour to where it will be consumed or not. - I'm not sure what you're getting at man, the lack of nearby grocery stores and the need to drive to access nutritional food is exactly my point with this.

Oddly enough, when I retested, it did for me as well. Try this one. https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/center-for-public-affairs-research/documents/policy-briefs/pb2014-urban-and-rural-food-deserts-in-nebraska.pdf If not, here it is. pb2014-urban-and-rural-food-deserts-in-nebraska.pdf

It's not about the food itself but the access to quality nutritional food. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/toolkits/sdoh/2/built-environment/food-access Many rural areas have limited access to healthy, affordable foods. Food deserts can be found in rural areas where supermarkets or grocery stores are scarce, which directly contributes to food insecurity. These areas may instead have more convenience stores which are more likely to sell processed, shelf-stable goods rather than fresh produce. As a result, residents may have to travel to find healthy food, which can be more challenging for those without reliable access to transportation. Rural residents who lack reliable transportation are particularly isolated, given the distance to the grocery store in rural communities and lack of public transportation options. These findings suggest the complexity of food access and its relationship to poverty and transportation.

Nor was it supposed to??? I made that comment in response to the idea that rural is where food is grown. The truth is most of the food grown in plains states needs to either be processed before eating or is grown for animal consumption. Farmers in the midwest generally do not grow produce for consumption. This is a common misconception. Please read.

Oh... here you go again, closed minded, condescending, and seeking to dismiss anything that doesn't fit your mindset. pretending that this is the first time any of us have heard about the plight of rural red voters and their relationship with Democrats This was your suggestion, mate, not mine. And you said this in response to me calling out your biases. Which seem to be firmly entrenched. To your point on Cost of Living. Here is the data, you claim to want- but clearly do not read. - https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/expenditures-of-urban-and-rural-households-in-2011.htm Urban households spent $7,808 (18 percent) more than rural households. Urban households received $15,779 (32 percent) more in yearly income than rural households.2 Higher housing expenditures by urban consumers accounted for about two-thirds of the difference in overall spending between urban and rural households. Rural households spent 32 percent more on prescription and nonprescription drugs than urban households. Urban households spent 28 percent more on food away from home and 5 percent less on food at home than rural households. Overall, urban households spent 7 percent more on food than rural households. Rural households spent more on gasoline and motor oil, and spent a higher percentage of their car and truck budgets on used vehicles. In the transportation spending category, urban households spent more on airline fares. Although rural and urban households spent about the same on entertainment, rural households spent more on pets, and urban households spent more on fees and admissions. So while yes, Urban households on average spend more per capita they NET on average nearly $8,000 more than rural households due to higher incomes. We must also take into account Urban shopping habits. Urban data is skewed due to multiple alternative shopping destinations. Target, Whole Foods, and other common Urban shopping places cost more than the dollar store and walmart and the like which are primarily the only available shopping destinations Rural people have to shop at. What's more- looking at this graph. Let's identify where Urban is spending more than rural shall we? Urban leads in categories most rural people really can't afford. Personal Insurance and Pensions ( INVESTMENT) Education (INVESTMENT) Housing (INVESTMENT) Food Away From Home (Luxury) Apparel and Services (Luxury) When it comes to necessities - Rural pays more in every category but housing, which, in the city, is an investment. Thanks for playing. Since it's clear you're not up for an actual conversation. I'll leave you and your "SUPER EDUCATED" mindset with knowledge that your approach to this entire conversation is the epitome of what red voters see when they think Liberal. Condescending, dismissive, and unwilling to acknowledge their struggles. They will vote republican just to spite anyone associated with that personification as they feel they are screwed either way. At least the Rs let them keep their guns. Peace out.

Fun Fact, you don't eat corn and soybeans. Here is a great scholarly article from University of Nebraska at Omaha. It's Ironic, I know- kind of like being on a boat in the ocean. Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink. https://www.unomaha.edu/college-of-public-affairs-and-community-service/center-for-public-affairs-research/documents/policy-briefs/pb2014-urban-and-rural-food-deserts-in-nebraska.pdf

Hahaha... cost of living... that's a good one. We can talk about that later too. This is absolutely a self inflicted wound as many rural communities like to use this talking point to attract new people. Its inaccurate at best, flat wrong at worst. What are you funding A building? Lumber costs the same at the point of sale- with delivery, you're paying extra Food insufficiency You're either expending fuel to get it or have delivered. The price at Sam's Club, Hy-vee or Walmart is the same whether you have to drive it an hour to where it will be consumed or not. Medical? - Your local doctor is farther away, is not as well equipped and if you need anything serious you have to drive to a major urban area. What's more the lack of food of nutritional value means you have more health issues and higher rates of diabetes heart issues, etc. And- you're less likely to stay up on preventative care due to distance and poor health insurance. Housing- There is a well known and documented housing shortage in rural America which means the savings you get in buying an old rural home are likely consumed by additional heating, cooling, and maintenance expenses and then some. Cost of living is a flawed metric.

That'll take more time than I have now, but I'll get you an answer. Another sound bite to add to our list of things said about rural America that wouldn't be said about other populations. This was actually said to me be someone responsible for significant philanthropic giving recently. "We can give less to rural areas because a dollar just goes so much further out there." Could you imagine the inverse being said, "We can give less to the projects because a dollar goes so much further there." A buck is a buck no matter where you spend it. What you're really saying with that statement is that, said population "should be happy with what they get, because its better than nothing, and frankly they just don't rank high on our priority list."

Great question - do you want to fix the perception held that Democrats do nothing to support rural Americans? Or the reality of rural poverty?

These are your statements I've adjusted the language slightly. I've indicated that impoverished rural Americans feel left behind by the current structure of federal and nonprofit means of addressing poverty and income inequality. You responded with the following messages. If "rural American's" was replaced with a different subject would you still feel comfortable asking these questions or making these statements? (African Americans) are attracted to a victimhood mentality, reinforced by the news they consume and the politicians who convince them they are being left behind. They seek someone to blame and land (wrongly) on the government, or immigrants, or inner-city yutes. Do (Native Americans) blame immigrants for their problems? Do (African Americans) blame the government for their problems? Do (minority Americans) blame whites for their problems? The fact that a population has been misled by the elite ruling class as to where the blame for their condition really lies, does not mean there is not an issue and does not mean that it should be dismissed and not addressed. I recon if you read a post stating the very same things you just said but with those subjects instead of rural Americans you would be appalled, as would I. Again, you're being defensive rather than being open to learning and letting an aggrieved population be heard.

They are attracted to a victimhood mentality, reinforced by the news they consume and the politicians who convince them they are being left behind. They seek someone to blame and land (wrongly) on the government, or immigrants, or inner-city yutes. Probably the exact same language used to dismiss calls for civil rights, African American poverty, and other minority needs. Look in the mirror man, this type of thought is exactly what I am talking about. "I don't believe you," "You're being a victim, so I'm not going to listen, or try to understand," are the very reactions that chase rural people away from the party. You cannot change hearts and minds without allowing people to be heard. - This is why Democrats lose. They preach, but don't take their own medicine.