The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

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

 

Maybe "working class voters in old industrial towns" may be a loophole for the discussion about rural voters, but I can guarantee you that rural voters did not differentiate the "clinging to their guns and Bible comment" nor should they. Because they do cling to their guns and Bibles, and recognized that Obama was using it as a pejorative. 

 

Obama wasn't wrong. Most Democrats would agree with him. But the only reason he said this is because he didn't know he was being recorded. 

[knapplc]

Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Maybe "working class voters in old industrial towns" may be a loophole for the discussion about rural voters, but I can guarantee you that rural voters did not differentiate the "clinging to their guns and Bible comment" nor should they. Because they do cling to their guns and Bibles, and recognized that Obama was using it as a pejorative. 

 

Obama wasn't wrong. Most Democrats would agree with him. But the only reason he said this is because he didn't know he was being recorded. 

 

I provided an edit after finding a better version of that quote. 

 

Quote

 

And when he spoke to a group of his wealthier Golden State backers at a San Francisco fund-raiser last Sunday, Barack Obama took a shot at explaining the yawning cultural gap that separates a Turkeyfoot from a Marin County. "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then 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."

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

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

 

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. 
 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

2 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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 think 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 a 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. Similar should be funding for improve 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 individual to grow into statewide or national level candidates. 

 

In many rural places, even 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 and average of $2 an hour more than the coal company. 

 

As anyone who has studied Maslov's Hierarchy of needs can attest. Not on 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 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. 

[Born N Bled Red]

18 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I provided an edit after finding a better version of that quote. 

 

 

 

"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. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Obama's statement actually was a plea for common ground, an admission that Marin County libs could do a better job of understanding the rural job loss that they haven't experienced, and acknowledging to Turkeyfoot conservatives that both parties failed to address their needs and that their frustrations are valid. 

 

But only five words got play. 

[knapplc]

19 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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 think 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 a 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. Similar should be funding for improve 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 individual to grow into statewide or national level candidates. 

 

In many rural places, even 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 and average of $2 an hour more than the coal company. 

 

As anyone who has studied Maslov's Hierarchy of needs can attest. Not on 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. 

 

It's funny because I don't disagree with much of this, yet we've been arguing/debating for two days.

 

What I find curious is why you led off with the premise that Democrats are to blame for turning their backs on rural voters. I think anyone who's spent time with rural voters would agree that, while they may say they want programs like these (and ESPECIALLY rural broadband, I hear that so often), they wouldn't vote for a candidate who would propose them, Democrat or Republican.

 

Rural Red voters are not backwater hicks that hate minorities.

 

Eh. How many rural red voters do you actually interact with? Because this is not only not true, it's not a rare sentiment. Maybe "hate" is too strong, but deeply distrusting and actively voting against, yes. You mentioned yourself how envious they are of all the perks & benefits minorities get. Racism has deep roots in rural America.

[knapplc]

11 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

"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. 

 

Hillary's "deplorables" was not talking broadly about rural red voters. Those people were told it applied to them by Rush and his ilk, and that messaging stuck. Same with Obama's comments on small-town Pennsylvanians. 

 

If rural red voters are willing to turn their backs on Democrats and keep them turned for decades because of a few random comments, that's more a them problem than a candidate problem, right? The alternative is that a candidate can never speak a harsh truth. Rural Americans claim to value that. 

 

This is why the Democrats can't win with rural voters. They simply don't have the messaging apparatus like talk radio or Fox and their telegenic hosts. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

9 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's where my West Virginia comment came from. You can propose real economic policies that bring new and better jobs to the state, but if you utter the simple truth that the days of Big Coal are over, the demagogue will crush you with a messaging battle. 

 

The handful of Republicans who crossed the line to support Joe Biden's infrastructure bill were threatened with GOP primary challenges -- and worse. 

 

It's still a messaging battle, where everything Joe Biden proposes is Godless communism. 

 

My messaging battle would be a simple review of how America actually works. But no one would watch it. 

[Redux]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Eh. How many rural red voters do you actually interact with? Because this is not only not true, it's not a rare sentiment. Racism has deep roots in rural America.

 

I'm sure this is true, if you solely focus on the racists.

[Born N Bled Red]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's funny because I don't disagree with much of this, yet we've been arguing/debating for two days.

 

What I find curious is why you led off with the premise that Democrats are to blame for turning their backs on rural voters. I think anyone who's spent time with rural voters would agree that, while they may say they want programs like these (and ESPECIALLY rural broadband, I hear that so often), they wouldn't vote for a candidate who would propose them, Democrat or Republican.

 

Rural Red voters are not backwater hicks that hate minorities.

 

Eh. How many rural red voters do you actually interact with? Because this is not only not true, it's not a rare sentiment. Maybe "hate" is too strong, but deeply distrusting and actively voting against, yes. You mentioned yourself how envious they are of all the perks & benefits minorities get. Racism has deep roots in rural America.

 

Like I said, I live in rural America, a town of 600 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart. I interact with ALOT of rural Red Voters and have a very sore tongue somedays as a result. 

 

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

[BigRedBuster]

14 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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. 

OK, thank you for the somewhat brief explanation.  

 

I'll hit on infrastructure first.  Infrastructure absolutely will not be lower per capita in a rural area compared to an urban area.  And, just looking at that is the wrong way of looking at it.  Let's take roads and bridges.  Someone from NYC might be saying, why the hell should be spend so much in Nebraska to expand I-80.  Look at the $$$ per capita on that for that state.  Well, how much of the goods they consume or produce go up and down I-80 being delivered across the US?  That's just one example.  The interstate system and everything that goes with it is funded by the federal government because it benefits much more than just the state it's in.  

 

Now, if you're talking about things like internet access.  I can sort of see the point of a complaint of why we should be paying so much to get fiber optic to rural America when, on a per capita basis, it's so expensive.  Well, that would fall under the economic development and opportunities for rural citizens.

 

Meanwhile, providing housing subsidies for someone in rural America for affordable housing is probably cheaper in many cases than in a city.  Building a low income house in rural Nebraska is cheaper than building projects in inner city Chicago, for instance.

 

So....I'm not sure how someone can just make a blanket statement that we should be spending more or less in certain areas.  See the need and do it.

 

Now, to your comments about grant writing in rural areas.  I actually work in economic development in central Nebraska.  I've also dealt with it in other states in rural areas.  States now days are very well organized in this all the way from the big cities down to small towns.  Our own small town deals with this all the time and it's a very coordinated effort from us, to the county, to the state...etc.  When you work in this in rural America, it's actually pretty interesting to see the programs working in these communities.  

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Like I said, I live in rural America, a town of 600 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart. I interact with ALOT of rural Red Voters and have a very sore tongue somedays as a result. 

 

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

 

 

I would have to see these campaign ads that celebrate success stories of welfare queens. Whose ads do this? National ads or local? That seems utterly bizarre - but I'll admit I haven't had cable in years and don't watch commercials. 

 

The weird thing is that being angry at the success of minorities isn't seen as a form of racism. It's an us/them mentality. How is that not racism?

 

And if these sentiments are the talk of the town, and around the country (per your testament), why don't these angry rural voters take their concerns to the people they actually vote for? Republicans can get rural broadband done. Why blame Democrats? 

 

To me, that's all (false) messaging that Democrats can't possibly overcome. It's a caricature, and rural voters have wholly bought into it. 

[Born N Bled Red]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Hillary's "deplorables" was not talking broadly about rural red voters. Those people were told it applied to them by Rush and his ilk, and that messaging stuck. Same with Obama's comments on small-town Pennsylvanians. 

 

If rural red voters are willing to turn their backs on Democrats and keep them turned for decades because of a few random comments, that's more a them problem than a candidate problem, right? The alternative is that a candidate can never speak a harsh truth. Rural Americans claim to value that. 

 

This is why the Democrats can't win with rural voters. They simply don't have the messaging apparatus like talk radio or Fox and their telegenic hosts. 

 

That is why the below part of what I wrote is SOOOO important to any hope democrats have of competing in rural areas. Without local representation, a local face to the party, it is all too easy for the republicans to label democrats as the boogey man. There needs to be local, visible, competent party affiliation in rural areas, or there will be no way to combat the narrative. 

 

They need to develop a rural strategy to identify potential democratic candidates for local offices and then provide leadership education and training to grow those individuals into electable candidates. They then need to support the election of these candidates in order to have local representation in rural areas. By not growing candidates and local faces of the party they are allowing conservatism to spread one local position at a time. They are also not enabling party members to get the leadership experience and exposure necessary for those individuals to grow into statewide or national level candidates.

[knapplc]

Just now, Born N Bled Red said:

 

That is why the below part of what I wrote is SOOOO important to any hope democrats have of competing in rural areas. Without local representation, a local face to the party, it is all too easy for the republicans to label democrats as the boogey man. There needs to be local, visible, competent party affiliation in rural areas, or there will be no way to combat the narrative. 

 

They need to develop a rural strategy to identify potential democratic candidates for local offices and then provide leadership education and training to grow those individuals into electable candidates. They then need to support the election of these candidates in order to have local representation in rural areas. By not growing candidates and local faces of the party they are allowing conservatism to spread one local position at a time. They are also not enabling party members to get the leadership experience and exposure necessary for those individuals to grow into statewide or national level candidates.

 

It has to be a two-way street. There can't possibly be local representation if rural voters won't support someone, no matter what they do or say, if there's a D beside their name.

 

This is the huge disconnect in this conversation. It seems you want the Democrats to fix everything. They simply can't, mostly because rural voters won't even let them have a chance.