The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[knapplc]

Quote

Democrats have been using the excuse of the "backwoods redneck," to write off any rural person that does not vote for them.

 

No Democrat in Washington who controls the policies you're talking about in this discussion says this. Cite your sources.

 

3 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Rural voters turned away from democrats because the democrats version of economic fairness - hasn't been fair to rural people (from their perspective).

 

You're talking about decades and decades of policy, from congresses controlled by both parties. None of those policies, from either party, have pulled rural America out of their funk. It is not "Democrat policies" that have left them behind, it's everyone. 

 

That rural voters blame Democrats is Republican messaging. They consistently vote against their own self-interest because one party tells them what they want to hear. 

 

Quote

 

True or not, their perception is their reality until proven otherwise

 

 

I'm glad you admit that "not true" is a possibility here. That's progress.

 

It isn't true, it's Republican messaging, we've heard it for decades from Lauren Boebert, MTG, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, etc. Huge list, decades of messaging. Fox News and their ilk are the primary TV banner. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were pounding away at it in the 1990s and before. 

 

That rural voters persist in a fallacy is not the fault of Democrats. It is the result of messaging and their willingness to believe it. 

 

I'll ask you again, since you punted last time - How do you propose Democrats fix this misperception?

[Born N Bled Red]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

No Democrat in Washington who controls the policies you're talking about in this discussion says this. Cite your sources.

 

 

You're talking about decades and decades of policy, from congresses controlled by both parties. None of those policies, from either party, have pulled rural America out of their funk. It is not "Democrat policies" that have left them behind, it's everyone. 

 

That rural voters blame Democrats is Republican messaging. They consistently vote against their own self-interest because one party tells them what they want to hear. 

 

 

I'm glad you admit that "not true" is a possibility here. That's progress.

 

It isn't true, it's Republican messaging, we've heard it for decades from Lauren Boebert, MTG, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, etc. Huge list, decades of messaging. Fox News and their ilk are the primary TV banner. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were pounding away at it in the 1990s and before. 

 

That rural voters persist in a fallacy is not the fault of Democrats. It is the result of messaging and their willingness to believe it. 

 

I'll ask you again, since you punted last time - How do you propose Democrats fix this misperception?

 

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. 

 

 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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. 

 

So, if both parties fail them, it's not policy they're voting on. They vote on emotion, and most recently they've been voting on the kind of emotion Trump, Gaetz, Nunez, McConnell, etc have been feeding them. 

 

How do Democrats counter that? What do they do or say to win over those voters?

[Born N Bled Red]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

So, if both parties fail them, it's not policy they're voting on. They vote on emotion, and most recently they've been voting on the kind of emotion Trump, Gaetz, Nunez, McConnell, etc have been feeding them. 

 

How do Democrats counter that? What do they do or say to win over those voters?

 

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. 

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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. 

 

We know why rural voters vote the way they do.

 

 

 

How do Democrats counter that? What do they do or say to win over those voters?

[BigRedBuster]

20 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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.

I'm still confused on this.  So, are you saying the government should build and run grocery stores selling health foods in rural areas?

So, in every small town in the sandhills, they should have a government food store?  What about the rancher that lives 25 miles outside that small sandhills town, should they put a grocery store on his corner just so he can shop there?

 

This whole thought process is baffling to me.  

[BigRedBuster]

The broader conversation in this thread has lost me.  Admittedly, I'm guessing I missed reading some posts.

 

So....are you guys talking about the per capita federal government spending in rural areas compared to urban areas?  Some people think that spending should be lower in rural areas due to lower cost of living?

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The broader conversation in this thread has lost me.  Admittedly, I'm guessing I missed reading some posts.

 

So....are you guys talking about the per capita federal government spending in rural areas compared to urban areas?  Some people think that spending should be lower in rural areas due to lower cost of living?

 

It started off as a conversation about Democrats missing rural voters, and some myths and misconceptions as to why. It morphed into a different kind of conversation after that.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

It started off as a conversation about Democrats missing rural voters, and some myths and misconceptions as to why. It morphed into a different kind of conversation after that.

But, are we talking about government spending per capita in rural areas compared to urban?

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

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?

 

A lot of this discussion is about losing the messaging battle, not actual policy. That's relevant because Dems who lose the messaging battle lose the chance to enact policy. 

 

But it's way too convenient to think Democrats don't play a huge part in their own problems. Democrats have become far too quick to compromise on actual policy, as they seem intent on capturing the political center and wavering Republicans. This has moved the party to the right without pulling in those voters. The policies most likely to help rural voters are the easiest to label as socialism and communism, and the GOP has been far better at this messaging ploy. 

 

The Democrats offered a centrist health care plan that did little to alleviate our much bigger health care crisis -- and still paid the price for being socialists. The financial crisis of 2008 gave Obama the political cover to punish the corporate elites who profited on the backs of working Americans, but the Democrats fell all  over themselves to appease Wall Street -- essentially hiring Goldman Sachs execs to run the economy while passing utterly toothless financial regulations. The temporary Bush Tax cuts were scheduled to revert under Obama, returning to the modest tax rate on high-wage earners, but Dems let them remain because they didn't relish the political battle.  Obama had a rare Supermajority his first two years in office, and didn't do jack with it. Then the Democrats ran one of the least liked or trusted candidates in its history. Much of the criticism of HIllary Clinton was orchestrated and unfair. But some of it was not. That's on Democrat leadership, too. 

 

BNBR already touched on the Southern Strategy from the 1960s that pitted liberal social values against previous Democratic strongholds in the South and among Labor, rural, and working class demographics, with many voters choosing their morality and religion over their perceived economic allies. We're still there. The Democratic stronghold is largely urban, educated and white collar, and they've only added distance to the rural voters they openly mock. You can't under-estimate how much social media has amplified this division. 

 

This is a good discussion. BNBR has linked to good articles by respectable publications. Entertaining the likelihood that Dems accept some of the blame doesn't mean absolving the Republicans. This is what intelligent debates are supposed to do.

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

A lot of this discussion is about losing the messaging battle, not actual policy. That's relevant because Dems who lose the messaging battle lose the chance to enact policy. 

 

But it's way too convenient to think Democrats don't play a huge part in their own problems. Democrats have become far too quick to compromise on actual policy, as they seem intent on capturing the political center and wavering Republicans. This has moved the party to the right without pulling in those voters. The policies most likely to help rural voters are the easiest to label as socialism and communism, and the GOP has been far better at this messaging ploy. 

 

The Democrats offered a centrist health care plan that did little to alleviate our much bigger health care crisis -- and still paid the price for being socialists. The financial crisis of 2008 gave Obama the political cover to punish the corporate elites who profited on the backs of working Americans, but the Democrats fell all  over themselves to appease Wall Street -- essentially hiring Goldman Sachs execs to run the economy while passing utterly toothless financial regulations. The temporary Bush Tax cuts were scheduled to revert under Obama, returning to the modest tax rate on high-wage earners, but Dems let them remain because they didn't relish the political battle.  Obama had a rare Supermajority his first two years in office, and didn't do jack with it. Then the Democrats ran one of the least liked or trusted candidates in its history. Much of the criticism of HIllary Clinton was orchestrated and unfair. But some of it was not. That's on Democrat leadership, too. 

 

BNBR already touched on the Southern Strategy from the 1960s that pitted liberal social values against previous Democratic strongholds in the South and among Labor, rural, and working class demographics, with many voters choosing their morality and religion over their perceived economic allies. We're still there. The Democratic stronghold is largely urban, educated and white collar, and they've only added distance to the rural voters they openly mock. You can't under-estimate how much social media has amplified this division. 

 

This is a good discussion. BNBR has linked to good articles by respectable publications. Entertaining the likelihood that Dems accept some of the blame doesn't mean absolving the Republicans. This is what intelligent debates are supposed to do.

 

I have not absolved the Dems from their own shortcomings. The party of Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer has not been the leadership the Dems, or America, needs. 

 

What I'm pushing back on is the idea that Democrats are to blame (and the implication that they bear the onus of the blame) for rural voters turning away from them. The reasons for that turning away are not Democrat problems. They're rural voter shortcomings. 

 

I've also pushed back on the implication (yet to be supported) that policy-making Democrats openly deride rural voters.

 

What I'm not pushing back on is that rural voters have challenges, some unique, that need to be addressed. 

 

I agree that this has been good, and that @Born N Bled Red has been making good points. I just happen to disagree with some of them. 

[Born N Bled Red]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I have not absolved the Dems from their own shortcomings. The party of Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer has not been the leadership the Dems, or America, needs. 

 

What I'm pushing back on is the idea that Democrats are to blame (and the implication that they bear the onus of the blame) for rural voters turning away from them. The reasons for that turning away are not Democrat problems. They're rural voter shortcomings. 

 

I've also pushed back on the implication (yet to be supported) that policy-making Democrats openly deride rural voters.

 

What I'm not pushing back on is that rural voters have challenges, some unique, that need to be addressed. 

 

I agree that this has been good, and that @Born N Bled Red has been making good points. I just happen to disagree with some of them. 

 

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."

[knapplc]

11 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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."

 

You might want to read that quote again to see who he was talking about. 

 

 

EDIT - I tracked down the full quote. While we never established what we're talking about in our rural/urban discussion, I agree Obama was referring to, if not truly rural folks, at least small-town folks. So, in the area. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

27 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

We know why rural voters vote the way they do.

 

 

 

How do Democrats counter that? What do they do or say to win over those voters?

 

 

My solutions would rely on efficacy, history, reason, and empathy. Sadly, they are no match for nationalist demagogues who know how to play the game of Hero & Villain. 

 

Because we have entered a QAnon world, I would never pretend to know what has to be said or done. These are uncharted waters.

 

It's probably reliant on a new Messenger.  You know how a single quarterback can sometimes turn a football program around? I think it's the same with Presidential candidates. I didn't see anyone who could remotely pull off that level of trust and charisma among the 26 candidates the Democrats trotted out in 2020. 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

My solutions would rely on efficacy, history, reason, and empathy. Sadly, they are no match for nationalist demagogues who know how to play the game of Hero & Villain. 

 

Because we have entered a QAnon world, I would never pretend to know what has to be said or done. These are uncharted waters.

 

It's probably reliant on a new Messenger.  You know how a single quarterback can sometimes turn a football program around? I think it's the same with Presidential candidates. I didn't see anyone who could remotely pull off that level of trust and charisma among the 26 candidates the Democrats trotted out in 2020. 

 

My take? It can't be done without reordering the social structure. The beliefs are entrenched, and while @Born N Bled Red's Obama quote above wasn't helpful, it wasn't untrue, even if it was unkind. 

 

If a 13-year-old quote by then-Senator Obama rankles today, how do you get past that? Wouldn't that just take a great deal of forgiving by the rural voters who would take offense to that? 

 

More and more I think we're heading into waters the Romans sailed circa 100-ish BC. The advent of Marius and Sulla, the several civil wars and the end of the Republic.

 

I agree we need someone charismatic to grasp hold of the electorate, and I agree that no one on the Democrat side remotely fits that bill. Sadly, there's plenty of charisma on the Republican side. Just the wrong kind.