The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

I'm asking for evidence for a claim. Supposedly this claim is so pervasive that it turned rural voters away from the entire Dem party, so it should be really easy to find many examples.

 

The claim is that Democrats bear some responsibility for losing the populist mantle and letting Republicans win the messaging battle. This failure is well documented by very keen political observers, most with a vested interest in Democrats regaining power. Links were provided.

 

I chose my words to address this, but you're still stuck on your own hyperbolic claim, incredulous that Democrats might champion their efforts on behalf of inner city minorities, and that rural voters might choose to see themselves as outsiders in the equation.

 

The fact is, rural Americans benefit hugely from government largesse. This is rarely explained to them. It should be, but Democrats are afraid to go there. 

 

Want to know why Democrats are losing the messaging battle? It's because Democrats who basically agree with each other continue to argue with each other over perceived slights. Gosh, I wish I could find an example to prove it to you.

 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:53 AM, Archy1221 said:

Thomas Frank, a Missouri Democrat who lived in the richest neighborhood in KC, then leaves to further education in VA and Chicago who then writes a book about what’s wrong with Kansas????  I thought life couldn’t get any funnier.  

I know: a fact based book written by somebody with a PhD accurately predicting that white voters care more about culture wars than their own economic interests 15 years before it went mainstream is certainly something a person like yourself (A denier that climate change is caused by human activity) probably would reject. 

[Born N Bled Red]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I know: a fact based book written by somebody with a PhD accurately predicting that white voters care more about culture wars than their own economic interests 15 years before it went mainstream is certainly something a person like yourself (A denier that climate change is caused by human activity) probably would reject. 

 

The New York Times bestseller, praised as "hilariously funny . . . the only way to understand why so many Americans have decided to vote against their own economic and political interests" -(Molly Ivins)
 

Hailed as "dazzlingly insightful and wonderfully sardonic" (Chicago Tribune), "very funny and very painful" (San Francisco Chronicle), and "in a different league from most political books" (The New York Observer), What's the Matter with Kansas? unravels the great political mystery of our day: Why do so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests? With his acclaimed wit and acuity, Thomas Frank answers the riddle by examining his home state, Kansas-a place once famous for its radicalism that now ranks among the nation's most eager participants in the culture wars. Charting what he calls the "thirty-year backlash"-the popular revolt against a supposedly liberal establishment-Frank reveals how conservatism, once a marker of class privilege, became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans.

A brilliant analysis-and funny to boot-What's the Matter with Kansas? is a vivid portrait of an upside-down world where blue-collar patriots recite the Pledge while they strangle their life chances; where small farmers cast their votes for a Wall Street order that will eventually push them off their land; and where a group of frat boys, lawyers, and CEOs has managed to convince the country that it speaks on behalf of the People.

 

- This is the description of the book on Amazon- Because ---- HAHHAHA F*ck yeah. It's hilarious to laugh at the suffering of 22 million Americans that control more than half the senate seats rather than engage them in conversation and try to understand why your elitist, condescending messaging is not gaining traction with that population. 

 

And yet you wonder why those same rural people want to give the finger to the people who write this drivel. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

21 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Sure is, as long as the Dems never want control of the house or senate again- not to mention state legislatures that control redistricting- but yup, write off all those uneducated, bassackwards, redneck, gun loving, bible hugging, cousin marrying, hicks. Urbanites have it all figured out. 

 

 

When it comes to state legislatures, Democrats simply can't win them, it's impossible. State legislatures in swing states are so gerrymandered they cannot be won.

 

In Ohio, for example, the state legislature is ~75% Republican. This is despite only an 8% Republican voting edge in the 2020 election, 53.2-45.2. What should be a minor Republican advantage is gerrymandered into a massive super majority.

 

Or consider Wisconsin, a state where Democrats got more votes in 2020. The legislature is dominated by Republicans, 61-38.

 

Swing state legislatures would require massive (i.e. impossible) margins of victory to capture a bare majority. 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

14 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

The claim is that Democrats bear some responsibility for losing the populist mantle and letting Republicans win the messaging battle. This failure is well documented by very keen political observers, most with a vested interest in Democrats regaining power. Links were provided.

 

I chose my words to address this, but you're still stuck on your own hyperbolic claim, incredulous that Democrats might champion their efforts on behalf of inner city minorities, and that rural voters might choose to see themselves as outsiders in the equation.

 

The fact is, rural Americans benefit hugely from government largesse. This is rarely explained to them. It should be, but Democrats are afraid to go there. 

 

Want to know why Democrats are losing the messaging battle? It's because Democrats who basically agree with each other continue to argue with each other over perceived slights. Gosh, I wish I could find an example to prove it to you.

 

 

 

Thanks @Guy Chamberlin the claim is that not only do they bear some responsiblity for losing the populist mantle and letting Republicans win the messaging battle. But also that it is their absolutely their problem to find a solution to, if they want to continue to engage in policy making. 

[Born N Bled Red]

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

When it comes to state legislatures, Democrats simply can't win them, it's impossible. State legislatures in swing states are so gerrymandered they cannot be won.

 

In Ohio, for example, the state legislature is ~75% Republican. This is despite only an 8% Republican voting edge in the 2020 election, 53.2-45.2. What should be a minor Republican advantage is gerrymandered into a massive super majority.

 

Or consider Wisconsin, a state where Democrats got more votes in 2020. The legislature is dominated by Republicans, 61-38.

 

Swing state legislatures would require massive (i.e. impossible) margins of victory to capture a bare majority. 

 

 

 

Yeah, so enact policy to limit political gerrymandering. Wait- you need rural states to get on board with that to enact that change don't you. 

 

Keep playing that fiddle. All is lost, woe is me. We can't compete.---  Find a way or become obsolete that is what the democrats are facing, and I'd rather not live in a fascist state. 

[Lorewarn]

16 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 --- They have to appeal to both. - They aren't.

 

They are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

but yup, write off all those uneducated, bassackwards, redneck, gun loving, bible hugging, cousin marrying, hicks. Urbanites have it all figured out. 

 

 

Who thinks they're uneducated, bassackwards, redneck, gun loving, bible hugging, cousin marrying, hicks. The Democrats? They're not the party treating them that way. 

 

But again, what's the solution other than Democrats ignoring minorities? Because it's clear if they highlight or target minorities at all that it will be used against them. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

3 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Yeah, so enact policy to limit political gerrymandering. Wait- you need rural states to get on board with that to enact that change don't you. 

 

Keep playing that fiddle. All is lost, woe is me. We can't compete.---  Find a way or become obsolete that is what the democrats are facing, and I'd rather not live in a fascist state. 

Well, the entire point of this discussion is that Democrats try to appeal to those voters by proposing increased government spending to help blighted areas. It gets rejected by those voters. 

 

Competing for their vote on social issues is difficult, and arguably is best not to do so. As Richard Hofstadter wrote about in the 1960s in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (found Here), people on the extreme right wing are motivated more by anger, conspiratory fantasy, etc. Thomas Frank expanded on this decades later in his book - which you've dismissed without reading - by explaing how Republicans pushed the Paranoid Style from the extreme right into the mainstream.

 

Therefore, your solution is that Democrats need to battle in this arena. They should out crazy Republicans. My answer is, your not wrong. That probably is how Democrats could win in rural areas, but it's objectively bad to do so. 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Could there be some racism there... sure. But it's also human nature. People are drawn to people who look like them. I know sales people who will go so far as to match hair styles and facial hair styles to people they are going in to make a pitch to. People who wear contacts normally will wear glasses on the days they pitch to someone who wears glasses. It's human psychology, not necessarily racist in nature. 

 

And yes, populism takes root in rural America. As someone else maybe @Guy Chamberlin pointed out. That is one thing Trump got right and Bernie too. Rural people are hurting. They hunger for someone who will speak with them not at them, and speak for them not about them. Democrats fail at this even when proposing legislation that will lift rural people.

 

It is a messaging issue in some instances. Obamacare for example could have been sold better to rural people, particularly to farmers as a rural safety net program. Parts of the BBB plan could be as well. - It's not, because democrats also can't afford to alienate their urban base. Gerrymandering in the house and the structure of the Senate now mean they have to appeal to both urban and rural. This isn't a should they or shouldn't they, we are past that. THEY HAVE to appeal to rural voters or they will be shut out of power. This is the hard cold reality. 

 

If you want to appeal to the rural voter. You have to understand their psychology. The understanding of that phycology is SEVERLY lacking. This was widely acknowledged in the wake of Trump's win. I had national columnists, think tanks, and research firms reaching out left and right asking how they could learn more about rural psychology and how Trump could happen. For a few months, then it became easier to outrage at everything Trump did and revert back to the REDNECK RACIST RURAL HICK stereotype and blame the voters for the failings of the party and its lack of traction with rural people. 

You can blame messaging on the Dem party, but not really any of the rest of what you're saying. It's just you ranting about how you think rural Americans perceive urban Americans perceiving rural Americans. It's like aggrievement inception.

 

I mostly agree Dems should do a better job messaging to rural voters, but you're lumping in all the ills that rural Americans perceive - true or false - and saying the Dem party has the responsibility to fix it all if they want rural votes. The reality is that Dems need to do better messaging but rural voters also need to understand that Dems not messaging well doesn't somehow make Repubs a good choice especially after decades of voting Repub and getting worse outcomes.

 

1 hour ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Knapplc said, "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 a Rural Blue voter speaking a harsh truth. Maybe urban blue voters can't handle it, but without rural voters, the Democrats will lose the opportunity to enact policy or change regardless how many crusty old Red voters fall off the voting rolls. 

 

I'm always amused at the "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" takes by posters. Right back at ya. Maybe urban voters understand the situation pretty well and it's the rural voters that can't handle the truth that they are their own worst enemy.

 

You early referenced how people will cling to their own beliefs despite the evidence. It's good advice for all of us to be open-minded about the evidence and our perceptions - including you. Maybe don't assume all of us have no understanding of rural voters and that even if you might have personal experience that gives you additional insight, it doesn't mean your views and opinions are necessarily correct.

[Guy Chamberlin]

36 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Then....what's the problem? BNBR's whole point was that this is a big problem and the Democrats need to fix it. So the only solution is to never run ads targeted towards or featuring minorities? 

 

 

 

 

Seems like another point of evidence that this is a Republican responsibility and not a Democratic one. Here's what the last day and a half of conversation in this thread seems like:

 

 

Democrats: We have this policy which will really help <insert minority> who is struggling

 

GOP: Look at these guys, white people! They don't care about you, only the brown and the black folks!

 

Dems: White folks this will help you too.

 

GOP: Look at these wellfare queens they're propping up, while you good red-blooded rural Americans are struggling. You're invisible to these coastal elites.

 

Dems: They're lying. This is a good policy designed to help all sorts of less fortunate people.

 

GOP: They want open borders and socialism and whites to be the minority

 

Born N Bled Red: The fault here lies at the feet of the Democrats.

 

Hey, you guys are doing a great job of exaggerating and over-simplifying to create rancor where it shouldn't exist.

 

Whatever you say about Democrat intentions and Republican fear-mongering, the Trump-led Republicans have reclaimed the populist mantle from the Democrats, and they've been expanding it on a local level. 

 

I have not seen a single post that lays all this at the feet of the Democrats. Simply that Democrats have to acknowledge that what they've been doing isn't working, and they will need to do something different. Blaming Republicans isn't going to work, either. The Welfare Queen reference was merely one example among hundreds in what has been a pretty thoughtful thread. 

 

Are you telling me Republicans ARE responsible for undermining the Democratic message?  No s#!t? Since that's how politics has worked forever, it's incumbent on Democrats to re-tool their messaging and even re-think their governing. Hate to break it to you, but plenty of Democrats would like to see changes in the Democratic Party. Just as Republicans need to clean their own house. 

 

And this perception that the coastal elites don't understand or care for rural Americans isn't exactly disinformation. As someone who moved to California from Nebraska, I can assure you the flyover states get lumped together in a lot of people's assumptions. 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Well, the entire point of this discussion is that Democrats try to appeal to those voters by proposing increased government spending to help blighted areas. It gets rejected by those voters. 

 

Competing for their vote on social issues is difficult, and arguably is best not to do so. As Richard Hofstadter wrote about in the 1960s in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" (found Here), people on the extreme right wing are motivated more by anger, conspiratory fantasy, etc. Thomas Frank expanded on this decades later in his book - which you've dismissed without reading - by explaing how Republicans pushed the Paranoid Style from the extreme right into the mainstream.

 

Therefore, your solution is that Democrats need to battle in this arena. They should out crazy Republicans. My answer is, your not wrong. That probably is how Democrats could win in rural areas, but it's objectively bad to do so. 

 

Let's look at this logically shall we.

 

Fact: The red electoral map is GROWING.

 

This suggests that democrats are actively losing individuals that once fell under their Big Tent. Political ideologies do not go from Democratic voting to the extreme right wing in 3 or 4 election cycles. This means the democrats are failing at retaining their rural voters, let alone trying to grow a base in rural areas. Plain and simple. It cannot get any clearer than that. 

[RedDenver]

42 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The claim is that Democrats bear some responsibility for losing the populist mantle and letting Republicans win the messaging battle. This failure is well documented by very keen political observers, most with a vested interest in Democrats regaining power. Links were provided.

I mean, that might be what you are claiming now. But the original claim was that rural voters are against the Dem party because of ads calling them "hicks" or otherwise demeaning them. There's been a lot of posting about it but no actual ads have been presented. Hilary saying "deplorables" and Obama's comments on industrial areas of Pennsylvannia are the closest that have been posted.

 

As I've posted a few times and @knapplc has posted many times, where's the evidence of Dem ads that have demeaned rural America? If it's so pervasive that entire swaths of rural voters have turned against an entire political party, then there should be lots of evidence of these ads, correct? So I expect we'll see one or more posts with many examples, if this is indeed true.

 

42 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I chose my words to address this, but you're still stuck on your own hyperbolic claim, incredulous that Democrats might champion their efforts on behalf of inner city minorities, and that rural voters might choose to see themselves as outsiders in the equation.

I made no such claim.

 

42 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The fact is, rural Americans benefit hugely from government largesse. This is rarely explained to them. It should be, but Democrats are afraid to go there. 

I agree.

 

42 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Want to know why Democrats are losing the messaging battle? It's because Democrats who basically agree with each other continue to argue with each other over perceived slights. Gosh, I wish I could find an example to prove it to you.

I disagree that this is the fundamental issue. Dems suck at messaging in their own campaigns against Repubs where arguments between Dems have no bearing. And I don't think you or BNRB have slighted me - I just disagree with the assertion that rural voters are against Dems because of demeaning ads.

[Born N Bled Red]

19 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

They are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who thinks they're uneducated, bassackwards, redneck, gun loving, bible hugging, cousin marrying, hicks. The Democrats? They're not the party treating them that way. 

 

But again, what's the solution other than Democrats ignoring minorities? Because it's clear if they highlight or target minorities at all that it will be used against them. 

 

Beto gets it. He's present. He is engaging rural Texans where they are at. There is a reason he is competing in Texas, and it isn't just because of changing Demographics. This is what needs to be done in all rural states. Let me ask you this. If you're from Nebraska, who is going to be the Democratic candidate for governor? 

 

In rural areas the DNC has given up. They don't even try. There is no rural strategy. I proposed a solution. Democrats need to make rural a PRIORITY. 

 

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. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Let's look at this ligically shall we.

 

Fact: The red electoral map is GROWING.

 

This suggests that democrats are actively losing individuals that once fell under their Big Tent. Political ideologies do not go from Democratic voting to the extreme right wing in 3 or 4 election cycles. This means the democrats are failing at retaining their rural voters, let alone trying to grow a base in rural areas. Plain and simple. It cannot get any clearer than that. 

A huge part of this is economic. Rural states are becoming more and more Red because young people are moving to cities for opportunities. 

 

Democrats are gaining more raw voters, so their tent is actually growing. But, because people are overwhelmingly moving to just a small handful of cities, our electoral systems punish their vote while amplifying rural states. 

 

Democrats try to win them over.  Consider the story about an Obama Era jobs retraining program. The goal was to retrain workers in dying industries to give them skills to land better jobs and lure industries to their communities. The jobs retraining program - opposed by Republicans because it's government spending - saw participation rates as low as 20% in some places. Some coal minors decided to take a course on... coal mining, believing that Trump would bring coal back. (Link Here).

 

They tried to improve those communities. The voters didn't participate and decided to elect Trump who simply promised them the impossible. 

[Born N Bled Red]

11 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I mean, that might be what you are claiming now. But the original claim was that rural voters are against the Dem party because of ads calling them "hicks" or otherwise demeaning them. There's been a lot of posting about it but no actual ads have been presented. Hilary saying "deplorables" and Obama's comments on industrial areas of Pennsylvannia are the closest that have been posted.

 

This was NEVER my claim, and you should have gone back to check before putting words in someone's mouth. This is my initial post that kicked off this entire conversation. My initial claim is EXACTLY the same as it is now, and to suggest otherwise is an absolute fallacy. I'll accept an apology and retraction when you're ready

 

 

"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. "