The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Dr. Strangelove]

23 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

So democrats need to stop overloading themselves into the cities and move back into the boonies with the rest of us and balance back out the vote. Think of it as the great repopulating of rural America. Thank how many other things this might help as well. Over crowded city schools, underutilized rural schools, rebalance out income and property taxes. Restabilize the housing market. etc. 

Unfortunately,  Urbanization is a phenomenon that has been going on for decades. This is not just an American problem, it's something happening worldwide. 

 

It's simple: cities offer more job opportunities, which generates wealth, leading to ever more job opportunities.  It's a positive feedback loop that seems unstoppable. 

 

Back to elections, the view of most political scientists and people who keep tabs on elections is that Democrats are screwed, mostly because of the Senate. They may compete well in the House, but they face disadvantages in the Electoral College and the Senate has a massive rural bias they simply can't compete with. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

23 hours ago, teachercd said:

That is why I think there is no way that a D gets beat (no pun intended) 

Yes, however, the electoral college mitigates this. 

 

The share of democratic votes is overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of states. In your example,  Trump running again would likely motivate a huge turnout in states like California... but winning that state by 5 million votes instead of 2.5 million if Trump doesn't run doesn't gain them much. You're winning the 54 electoral votes there regardless. (In fact, the entirety of Bidens national popular vote win in 2020 came from California and New York)

 

The millions of votes gained in Dem dominated areas like California are completely mitigated if 50k rural white voters in Pennsylvania show up motivated by Trump. 

 

This is a bit of an extreme example of course, but hopefully the point is clear: running up the margin of victory in areas they already win doesn't help Democrats electoral chances. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Yes, however, the electoral college mitigates this. 

 

The share of democratic votes is overwhelmingly concentrated in a handful of states. In your example,  Trump running again would likely motivate a huge turnout in states like California... but winning that state by 4 million votes instead of 2.5 million if Trump doesn't run doesn't gain them much. You're winning the 54 electoral votes there regardless.

 

The millions of votes gained in Dem dominated areas like California are completely mitigated if 50k rural white voters in Pennsylvania show up motivated by Trump. 

 

This is a bit of an extreme example of course, but hopefully the point is clear: running up the margin of victory in areas they already win doesn't help Democrats electoral chances. 

Oh yeah, I totally get that but I just can't see where Trump gets more votes than last time.  Is anyone that did not vote for him last time voting for him this time?  I don't think so.

 

So it would make sense (sort of) that the D would get all the same votes from the people that voted for Joe last time, in theory.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

6 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Oh yeah, I totally get that but I just can't see where Trump gets more votes than last time.  Is anyone that did not vote for him last time voting for him this time?  I don't think so.

 

So it would make sense (sort of) that the D would get all the same votes from the people that voted for Joe last time, in theory.  

Perhaps, but Trump would only need 40k voters in Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia to change their minds in order to win.

 

That's even before trends of states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania becoming more and more Republican with each election cycle.

[Born N Bled Red]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Unfortunately,  Urbanization is a phenomenon that has been going on for decades. This is not just an American problem, it's something happening worldwide. 

 

It's simple: cities offer more job opportunities, which generates wealth, leading to ever more job opportunities.  It's a positive feedback loop that seems unstoppable. 

 

Back to elections, the view of most political scientists and people who keep tabs on elections is that Democrats are screwed, mostly because of the Senate. They may compete well in the House, but they face disadvantages in the Electoral College and the Senate has a massive rural bias they simply can't compete with. 

 

True enough on urbanization. It's likely a lost cause. My hope is that Covid has boosted "work from home," possibilities enough that some may be more attracted to small town life and can now make that more realistic. 

 

Now - sorry, but this might turn into a rant. When it comes to elections Democrats need to do a better job appealing to rural people. And I don't mean in platitudes either. The truth of the matter is that rural people have become the great forgotten in nearly every metric. Did you know that urban areas receive more philanthropic dollar per capita at 4:1 ratio? Tax dollars are similarly allocated. Road maintenance and construction, etc. 

 

What is worse is the complete and utter neglect of rural poverty. There is a reason that some white people have a hard time grasping the idea of white privilege. It is because they also grew up poor as heck, in houses built at the turn of the century without adequate heating and air, with lice and other infestations. They wear holey smelly clothes to school because that's all they have, and no one is there offer them a hand up or a hand out, like they see going to minority and inner city people. The impoverished rural population is out of sight, out of mind. No one gets feel good jollys out of seeing their dollars get a kid to sports practices and after school programs because no one sees that poor white kid out in the boonies. 

 

Both parents work, parents can't afford daycare. That kid is home alone just as much, if not more than the inner city kid. There is no one to teach that kid to read, no one to help with homework, no one to ensure the kid doesn't end up on drugs or alcohol before puberty. And that kid is the one who never leaves their small town, the one who grows up hating the system that saw free college given to someone just because they grew up poor and a minority. That is someone who grows even more spiteful knowing their kid will live through the same and likely suffer the same fate. That is the voter who wants to stick it to the man, the person who celebrates diversity initiatives and who left them behind, who told them they weren't good enough for the free ride to college or the donated after school programming, or the free lunches all because, they were the wrong skin color and grew up in a rural area. 

 

People want to understand the rural voter- this is it. They are forgotten by the do-good left, and coddled by the right on platitudes and social issues while having their pocket books stripped and livelihood depleted by the right. This is what they mean when they say both sides are just as bad. At least the right makes their intent obvious. The left offers solutions to the very problems they face- but for everyone but them, an even greater affront. 

 

This is what the redneck white are saying when they say "all lives matter." This is what they are saying with their vote for Trump and turning their counties and states RED on the electoral map. And, if the leaders of the DNC cannot figure this out, if they cannot or are not willing to truly address rural poverty in the same way their bleeding hearts tackle urban poverty. They deserve to lose the senate. 

 

End Rant. 

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

True enough on urbanization. It's likely a lost cause. My hope is that Covid has boosted "work from home," possibilities enough that some may be more attracted to small town life and can now make that more realistic. 

 

Now - sorry, but this might turn into a rant. When it comes to elections Democrats need to do a better job appealing to rural people. And I don't mean in platitudes either. The truth of the matter is that rural people have become the great forgotten in nearly every metric. Did you know that urban areas receive more philanthropic dollar per capita at 4:1 ratio? Tax dollars a similarly allocated. Road maintenance and construction, etc. 

 

What is worse is the complete and utter neglect of rural poverty. There is a reason that some white people have a hard time grasping the idea of white privilege. It is because they also grew up poor a heck, in houses built at the turn of the century without adequate heating and air, with lice and other infestations. They wear holey smelly clothes to school because that's all they have, and no one is offer them a hand up or a hand out, like they see going to minority and inner city people. The impoverished rural population is out of sight, out of mind. No one gets feel good jollys out of seeing their dollars get a kid to sports practices and after school programs because no one sees that poor white kid out in the boonies. 

 

Both parents work, parents can't afford daycare. That kid is home alone just as much, if not more than the inner city kid. There is no one to teach that kid to read, no one to help with homework, no one to ensure the kid doesn't end up on drugs or alcohol before puberty. And that kid is the one who never leaves their small town, the one who grows up hating the system that saw free college given to someone just because the grew up poor and a minority. That is someone who grows even more spiteful knowing their kid will live through the same and likely suffer the same fate. That is the voter who wants to stick it to the man, the person who celebrates diversity initiatives who left them behind, who told them they weren't good enough for the free ride to college or the donated after school programming, or the free lunches all because, they were the wrong skin color and grew up in a rural area. 

 

People want to understand the rural voter- this is it. They are forgotten by the do-good left, and coddled by the right on platitudes and social issues while having their pocket books stripped and livelihood depleted by the right. This is what they mean when they say both sides are just as bad. At least the right makes their intent obvious. The left offers solutions to the very problems they face- but for everyone but them, an even greater affront. 

 

This is what the redneck white are saying when they say "all lives matter." This is what they are saying with their vote for Trump and turning their counties and states RED on the electoral map. And, if the leaders of the DNC cannot figure this out, if they cannot or are not willing to truly address rural poverty in the same way their bleeding hearts tackle urban poverty. They deserve to lose the senate. 

 

End Rant. 

 

That's quite the story. A lot of that describes my childhood - except for the feeling sorry for myself and becoming embittered part. 

 

The myth that these poor inner-city minorities are getting some great handout by the "do-good Democrats" makes people feel better, but if you've been to the areas you're talking about you see this simply isn't true. These people experience as much abject poverty as the rural folks you describe. 

 

What doesn't make sense to me is that these people - both rural and urban - keep voting for the same people every election.  Slamming their hand in that same car door  doesn't seem to be fixing any problem those voters have. Maybe vote for someone else, and keep doing it until the politicians take notice. 

 

Why don't these people demand their representatives actually DO something about rural poverty? They voted for them, nothing is happening... ???? It's that mentality I don't understand. 

 

I felt unrepresented by the Republicans I voted for, so I stopped registering as Republican. If more people did that, the parties would take note. They'd have to. 

[Born N Bled Red]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That's quite the story. A lot of that describes my childhood - except for the feeling sorry for myself and becoming embittered part. 

 

The myth that these poor inner-city minorities are getting some great handout by the "do-good Democrats" makes people feel better, but if you've been to the areas you're talking about you see this simply isn't true. These people experience as much abject poverty as the rural folks you describe. 

 

What doesn't make sense to me is that these people - both rural and urban - keep voting for the same people every election.  Slamming their hand in that same car door  doesn't seem to be fixing any problem those voters have. Maybe vote for someone else, and keep doing it until the politicians take notice. 

 

Why don't these people demand their representatives actually DO something about rural poverty? They voted for them, nothing is happening... ???? It's that mentality I don't understand. 

 

I felt unrepresented by the Republicans I voted for, so I stopped registering as Republican. If more people did that, the parties would take note. They'd have to. 

The myth that these poor inner-city minorities are getting some great handout by the "do-good Democrats" makes people feel better, but if you've been to the areas you're talking about you see this simply isn't true.

 

I've been there. I know this. I work in this field- I live in rural America. - The rural whites know this too. But... they also know and live their own situation. Every inner-city, minority success story shared as part of a campaign message, as part of successful poverty initiative only serves as a reminder that no one has been there for them, that they haven't received any of that support. That they've been left to fend for themselves and did it without the support of the left. 

 

And while you say urban poverty isn't getting "some great handout," the per capita investment discrepancy disagrees.

 

There is a reason Republican politicians stir up outrage on guns, on religion, and on race. It is because if they give the rural whites this- they don't have to give them anything else. Because the left sure as heck isn't offering anything either. So, the choice to vote red is just as much a vote for those social issues as it is a finger to the people who helped everyone else in their situation, but them. 

 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

The myth that these poor inner-city minorities are getting some great handout by the "do-good Democrats" makes people feel better, but if you've been to the areas you're talking about you see this simply isn't true.

 

I've been there. I know this. I work in this field- I live in rural America. - The rural whites know this too. But... they also know and live their own situation. Every inner-city, minority success story shared as part of a campaign message, as part of successful poverty initiative only serves as a reminder that no one has been there for them, that they haven't received any of that support. That they've been left to fend for themselves and did it without the support of the left. 

 

And while you say urban poverty isn't getting "some great handout," the per capita investment discrepancy disagrees.

 

There is a reason Republican politicians stir up outrage on guns, on religion, and on race. It is because if they give the rural whites this- they don't have to give them anything else. Because the left sure as heck isn't offering anything either. So, the choice to vote red is just as much a vote for those social issues as it is a finger to the people who helped everyone else in their situation, but them. 

 

 

You've been to the inner cities and seen these magical handouts that are improving the lives of minorities? Care to give some specific examples?

 

Campaign messages aren't reality. If they were, we'd all believe that every farmer in every politician's ad is getting massive handouts, making him prosperous, fat and comfortable. But that's not exactly true, is it? Maybe campaign ads aren't a great barometer of how people are living their daily lives in rural America, or inner city America. Right?

 

Where are you seeing this per-capita investment discrepancy? Without knowing what you're talking about it's hard to compare. 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You've been to the inner cities and seen these magical handouts that are improving the lives of minorities? Care to give some specific examples?

 

Campaign messages aren't reality. If they were, we'd all believe that every farmer in every politician's ad is getting massive handouts, making him prosperous, fat and comfortable. But that's not exactly true, is it? Maybe campaign ads aren't a great barometer of how people are living their daily lives in rural America, or inner city America. Right?

 

Where are you seeing this per-capita investment discrepancy? Without knowing what you're talking about it's hard to compare. 

 

 

Dude, quit getting defensive and read what I'm saying. - I agree inner-city minorities are (not) getting some great handout by the "do-good Democrats." But they are getting more than the rural population is getting on a per capital basis. 

 

Doesn't matter if campaign messages are reality or not, if it is the only point of contact a party has with a voter. Democrats have NO RURAL STRATEGY. Campaign messaging and Fox is all rural people know of the democratic party. 

 

Here is an entry point to look at data. I'm giving you a start feel free to google away. The Myth of Rural 'Subsidies' - The Daily Yonder , 6 charts that illustrate the divide between rural and urban America | PBS NewsHour

 

I grew up rural, am a registered democrat, live in rural (after many years of urban living) have advanced higher education (poli sci major, undergrad), have worked on state level democrat campaigns, and work in the field of social justice. - I'm not some right winger attacking the dems. I've worked long and hard to understand the rural RED voter's mindset. You can argue against it, sure, but it doesn't make me any less right on the midset of the rural red voter. This is it. 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 individuals. (True or not, their perception is their reality until proven otherwise.)  

 

Dems need to understand this and make inroads or they will not compete in the Senate. 

 

 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Dude, quit getting defensive and read what I'm saying. - I agree inner-city minorities are getting some great handout by the "do-good Democrats." But they are getting more than the rural population is getting on a per capital basis. 

 

Doesn't matter if campaign messages are reality or not, if it is the only point of contact a party has with a voter. Democrats have NO RURAL STRATEGY. Campaign messaging and Fox is all rural people know of the democratic party. 

 

Here is an entry point to look at data. I'm giving you a start feel free to google away. The Myth of Rural 'Subsidies' - The Daily Yonder

 

I grew up rural, am a registered democrat, live in rural (after many years of urban living) have advanced higher education (poli sci major, undergrad), have worked on state level democrat campaigns, and work in the field of social justice. - I'm not some right winger attacking the dems. I've worked long and hard to understand the rural RED voter's mindset. You can argue against it, sure, but it doesn't make me any less right on the midset of the rural red voter. This is it. 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 individuals. (True or not, their perception is their reality until proven otherwise.)  

 

You're not describing a problem with Democrats, you're describing a problem with rural red voters. If they won't see reality, what are Dems supposed to do? Just start lying to them like Republicans? What good does that do anyone?

 

What's crazy is rural voters bite the hand that feeds them - the handouts they receive are generated by the greater number of taxpayers in urban areas. 

 

Why rural America needs cities

 

And the chart in the article you linked shows arguably negligibly larger resources allocated to urban areas per capita - but if we're going to err on the urban/rural divide, doesn't it make sense to err where there are more people? And in two of the six years cited, urban areas received larger per-capita federal spending. It's such a weird argument. 

 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

You're not describing a problem with Democrats, you're describing a problem with rural red voters. If they won't see reality, what are Dems supposed to do? Just start lying to them like Republicans? What good does that do anyone?

 

What's crazy is rural voters bite the hand that feeds them - the handouts they receive are generated by the greater number of taxpayers in urban areas. 

 

Why rural America needs cities

 

And the chart in the article you linked shows arguably negligibly larger resources allocated to urban areas per capita - but if we're going to err on the urban/rural divide, doesn't it make sense to err where there are more people? And in two of the six years cited, urban areas received larger per-capita federal spending. It's such a weird argument. 

 

 

 

 

So you looked at one chart and decided the argument was poor- I thought you wanted data???? From the article, if you had chosen to read rather than seek confirmation bias to refute and score a quick dismissal.

 

"What’s the cause of this disparity? Rural people are, on average, poorer and older than those who live in the cities. As a result, almost all of the difference in spending on income security derives from spending on Social Security, disability and other direct payments, according to an analysis by the Rural Policy Research Institute.

Per capita spending is lower in rural areas than in urban counties in total — and the only reason the totals are even close is that rural people are, on average poorer and older than those who live in the cities."

 

Come on man. You're better than this. Research the topic reach out to organizations who specialize in rural poverty to learn more. Then lets discuss. 

 

If you want to understand "What's the matter with Kansas." this is it. If you want to understand why a RED wave is sweeping rural America, and how the left can combat it, it will do you well. 

[knapplc]

Just now, Born N Bled Red said:

You're better than this.

 

I am, in fact, not better than this.

 

But I do spend a lot of time with rural Americans, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the premise of the red anger is wrong.

 

And there's very little Democrats can do about that. Red voters constantly vote against their own self-interests. 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. To crack that voting bloc Democrats will have to spiral downward themselves. I'm hoping they don't do that. 

[Born N Bled Red]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I am, in fact, not better than this.

 

But I do spend a lot of time with rural Americans, and I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that the premise of the red anger is wrong.

 

And there's very little Democrats can do about that. Red voters constantly vote against their own self-interests. 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. To crack that voting bloc Democrats will have to spiral downward themselves. I'm hoping they don't do that. 

 

 

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. 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

 

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. 

 

Do rural Americans blame immigrants for their problems?

Do rural Americans blame the government for their problems?

Do rural Americans blame minorities for their problems?

 

[Born N Bled Red]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Do rural Americans blame immigrants for their problems?

Do rural Americans blame the government for their problems?

Do rural Americans blame minorities for their problems?

 

 

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.