The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Born N Bled Red]

48 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

This conversation between you two has been interesting. But I tend to agree with Knapplc on this. White rural voters voting against their own interests (they tend to reject spending pushed by Democrats that would help their communities) is one of the most well documented aspects of Political Science.

 

Thomas Frank wrote about this phenomenon in the early 2000s when he wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas?" He found that rural voters are much more inclined to be persuaded by culture war issues, even when it comes at their own self destruction.

 

The plight of the white rural voter is mostly caused by irreversible economics. There aren't opportunities for growth to lead to a larger tax base. They also vote in ways that ensure their demise. The white rural voter is already a tax liability - rural counties already get more than they pay. In order to win them over, Democrats would have to endulge their culture war fantasies more than Republicans, I'm not sure that's good for the country if they do. 

 

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. 

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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.

 

This is not a Democrat creation. It's a Republican creation blamed on Democrats. 

[Born N Bled Red]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You're saying that 22% of the population getting 20% of the charitable dollars (a 4:1 discrepancy is 1/(1+4)=20%) is an issue? That seems pretty much right on target.

 

And even if there was a discrepancy, I still don't see the logic for the Dem party being tied to charitable giving amounts.

 

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.  

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

This is not a Democrat creation. It's a Republican creation blamed on Democrats. 

 

YUP!!! Cuz a REPUBLICAN wrote, what's the matter with Kansas......  

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

YUP!!! Cuz a REPUBLICAN wrote, what's the matter with Kansas......  

 

One man's opinion does not make your premise true. 

[Redux]

2024, Donald Trump defeats incumbent POTUS Kamala Harris by a significant margin

[Born N Bled Red]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

One man's opinion does not make your premise true. 

 

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/

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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. 

 

 

Reject what premise on its face? 

[RedDenver]

17 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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. 

Ok, per capita makes a great difference. But again, philanthropic spending is NOT due to political parties, so not sure why you're so adamant about it being tied to Dems.

 

The report also only covers 1996-2001, so it's WAY out of date and of questionable applicability today. 

 

17 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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.  

Rural Americans are welcome to be aggrieved by the system, but if they're voting against Dems because of something the Dems don't control, then that's just idiotic. As has been posted, rural voters keep voting for Republicans and their policies of reducing welfare including for rural America. Voting has consequences.

[Born N Bled Red]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Reject what premise on its face? 

 

Dude..... that's a response I'd expect from @Archy1221 

 

No offense @Archy1221

[knapplc]

Just now, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Dude..... that's a response I'd expect from @Archy1221 

 

No offense @Archy1221

 

I'm absolutely serious. What do you think I'm rejecting?

[Born N Bled Red]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I'm absolutely serious. What do you think I'm rejecting?

 

Exactly what you said you were rejecting. 

 

21 hours 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?

 

 

 

 

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. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

32 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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. 

 

This is a good post.

 

Of course Republicans have fostered the messaging that encourages rural and working class Americans to vote against their self interest. Republicans are wildly hypocritical and somehow manage to get away with it. But BNBR is right about Democrats leaning on a fading legacy, and losing the mantle of Populism by misreading the electorate, then mocking them. 

 

This is, unfortunately, what Trump got right. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of patronizing elitism and Trump basically cut the legs out of both parties by talking directly to the people in non-political language. It often made no sense and promised things Trump couldn't possibly deliver but that's how hungry people were for change. 

 

Everyone prefers simple narratives. Every issue needs a good guy and a bad guy. The media didn't create that: they just play to it. Real world solutions are complex and rarely immediate, and we just don't do that well. One might think pragmatic rural voters prefer things simpler than urban voters, but the willingness of the deep red base to embrace the most convoluted of conspiracy theories has really thrown me. I honestly thought January 6 was a line most wouldn't cross. But millions have been talked into a brand of patriotism that is clinically sociopathic. 

[knapplc]

Just now, Born N Bled Red said:

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. 

 

Right. But that's not what you're blaming Democrats for. Your words:

 

Quote

 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. 

 

You're falling victim to what you're blaming others for: You've created a caricature of a Democrat and claim others aren't embracing it. It's a straw man. The caricature you describe above is created by Republicans to demonize Democrats. You admit it yourself that "Republican politicians stir up outrage on guns, on religion, and on race. " What you're describing here is another tactic. Democrats do not adhere to this caricature as a matter of policy - but Republicans encourage rural voters to believe they do.

 

And it works. As we're seeing here.

 

Quote

 

The lack of any kind of policy for rural americans has doomed the Democrats in rural areas ever since. 

 

 

Democrats have provided social safety nets that encompass rural red voters. Republicans, instead, focus on messaging. Which works, as we're seeing here.

 

What I reject, prima facie, is the idea that Democrats are to blame for rural voters turning away from them. 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. 

 

But you're right - we do agree on many things.

 

Rural poverty is a problem.

Rural opportunities are limited.

Rural areas have less resources. 

 

What we disagree on is why those things are happening, and that there is/should be a divide between rural and urban voters. You want to blame Democrats, while I think rural voters bear most of the responsibility for their issues. 

 

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. 

 

It is not incumbent on Democrats to come to rural voters. No party should have to sell their soul to garner votes. Rural voters need to turn away from their self-destructive ways. 

[knapplc]

16 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

But BNBR is right about Democrats leaning on a fading legacy, and losing the mantle of Populism by misreading the electorate, then mocking them. 

 

I'm struggling to think of examples where the Washington Dems who control the kinds of policy we're talking about in this discussion do this. Do you have any?

[Born N Bled Red]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Right. But that's not what you're blaming Democrats for. Your words:

 

 

You're falling victim to what you're blaming others for: You've created a caricature of a Democrat and claim others aren't embracing it. It's a straw man. The caricature you describe above is created by Republicans to demonize Democrats. You admit it yourself that "Republican politicians stir up outrage on guns, on religion, and on race. " What you're describing here is another tactic. Democrats do not adhere to this caricature as a matter of policy - but Republicans encourage rural voters to believe they do.

 

And it works. As we're seeing here.

 

 

Democrats have provided social safety nets that encompass rural red voters. Republicans, instead, focus on messaging. Which works, as we're seeing here.

 

What I reject, prima facie, is the idea that Democrats are to blame for rural voters turning away from them.

 

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

But you're right - we do agree on many things.

 

Rural poverty is a problem.

Rural opportunities are limited.

Rural areas have less resources. 

 

What we disagree on is why those things are happening, and that there is/should be a divide between rural and urban voters. You want to blame Democrats, while I think rural voters bear most of the responsibility for their issues. 

 

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. 

 

It is not incumbent on Democrats to come to rural voters. No party should have to sell their soul to garner votes. Rural voters need to turn away from their self-destructive ways. 

 

"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.)