The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I disagree. If Democrats thought they could win 60 Senate seats based and the proposals described - ones I would support in a heart beat - they would do so

 

 

 

Are you disagreeing that there’s disagreement within the Democratic Party?

[Lorewarn]

4 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

If it's not effective explain Beto's success in Texas.

 

What success? A member of city council, a mayor of El Paso, and a U.S. rep, then repeated failures despite being an incredibly charismatic, reasonable and likable personality? 

 

 

4 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Their failure to enact true policy change when given the opportunity has further enforced this and allowed culture war issues to hold more weight than they should because there is no economic solution being offered by either party for the issues rural areas face. 

 

 

Their failure to enact true policy change comes from being too willing to compromise and try to make things palatable to conservative politicians and citizens. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't, and once again the most culpable party is the one you're spending zero time focusing on.

 

The Build Back Better plan offers millions of jobs, infrastructure upgrades, rural broadband, offers great assistance and the biggest initiatives in history with pre-school/childcare, offers tax cuts to millions, helps middle class families invest in clean energy, reduces drug costs, expands Medicare, extends the EITC for millions, makes the largest and most comprehensive investment in affordable housing in history, and is entirely paid for by the rich. There's messaging everywhere designed towards rural white voters.

 

"There is no economic solution being offered by either party for the issues rural areas face" is an absolute horses#!t opinion.

[Born N Bled Red]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You replied, so you can stop with the "red herring" fallacy nonsense. Either engage in the discussion with me or not, but don't hide behind claiming a fallacy you are contributing to.

 

I went back 24 hours in this thread and here's all your posts with links in them so that I'm not misrepresenting you:

Yes, it's a Trump ad from Feb 2020. I think we all agree on Repub messaging, so I don't think there's a disagreement here.

 

This is from Sep 2021. None of the 3 ads in that article is the Dem party demeaning rural America, which I think we also agree on. (I'll come back to what I think you're intending by this link below.)

 

This is an article about how storytelling is powerful for campaigning. I think we can all agree on that.

 

Alright, let's say I completely misunderstood your previous posts and take a fresh look at your assertion (I've bolded).

 

I agree with you here. I'd love for Dems to own their failures and do better. But that brings us to the crux of the issue: What are the Dem failures they need to own?

 

I think you're trying to claim that the ads directed at Hispanics in the Hill article are one of the failures that Dems need to own. Yes?

 

I've admitted in a previous post that I got two concepts combined and made a good faith effort to say so and separate them. And I'm taking a fresh look at your assertion in this post and trying to get to the core of the discussion. You can keep saying that I'm intending to derail the conversation or that I'm offended or whatever, but it just makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously.

 

I appreciate this response. I have a comment, but am busy now. I just didn't want to leave you hanging. 

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

disagree. This has been a very good discussion. No more demagoguery, rants and insults on one side than the other. Good links to relevant articles. A lot of common ground actually. Not sure why you’re viewing it so adversarial.

 

Archy? Could you step in and give us something to agree on?

I think we can all agree most Democrat politicians suck at relating to us common folk in God’s country.  How’s that? 

[Guy Chamberlin]

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I think we can all agree most Democrat politicians suck at relating to us common folk in God’s country.  How’s that? 

 

Thanks.

 

I was hoping we could all agree to argue with you instead of each other.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Thanks.

 

I was hoping we could all agree to argue with you instead of each other.

I thought we all agreed Democrats suck at policy  

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

Their failure to enact true policy change comes from being too willing to compromise and try to make things palatable to conservative politicians and citizens. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't, and once again the most culpable party is the one you're spending zero time focusing on.

 

 

I'd say the over-willingness to compromise, and the failure to communicate the genuine value of their policies to rural and blue-collar voters is something the Democrats can work on.  We can focus on how and why this is really the Republicans fault, but that's pretty much all we've been doing. It's not a zero sum game. Both parties have some homework to do on the state of the electorate.

 

Democratic national leadership is hardly beyond criticism. They've made some bad choices in the last decade. The hope has always been for grassroots leadership and a new generation of local candidates not hand-selected by the DNC. 

 

FWIW....in 2016, Hillary Clinton made one campaign appearance in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin combined because she took their blueness for granted. That speaks a lot louder than any tv commercial. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

18 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I thought we all agreed Democrats suck at policy  

 

 

Moving the goalposts already. This is exactly the kind of HuskerBoard horses#!t that can bring us together!

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Moving the goalposts already. This is exactly the kind of HuskerBoard horses#!t that can bring us together!

See we agree, all those things you discussed were horses#!t

[Dr. Strangelove]

On 1/8/2022 at 10:00 AM, Archy1221 said:

I thought we all agreed Democrats suck at policy  

 

Yes, and Republicans are so great they've decided not to even put forward a policy agenda for the 2nd election cycle in a row. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

On 1/7/2022 at 5:33 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

 

Are you disagreeing that there’s disagreement within the Democratic Party?

No, Democrats have their own infighting. Currently trying to push a Senator in an R+30 state to the left, rejecting his 1.8T offer. They should've just asked him what he wanted 5 months ago and passed it, now they get nothing. 

 

What I am disagreeing with is the idea that Democrats can go into Red states and campaign on large government expansion to better the lives of the individuals living there. I think that's dubious, and a lot of research going back decades says that it won't work. 

[knapplc]

19 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

What I am disagreeing with is the idea that Democrats can go into Red states and campaign on large government expansion to better the lives of the individuals living there. I think that's dubious, and a lot of research going back decades says that it won't work. 

 

I had a chance to spend time with these voters this past weekend. This is spot-on. They absolutely do NOT want to hear from Dem candidates on policy like this. The very thought of something like BBB brought out the word "socialism." And every conversation that was remotely political included the word "Obama." 

 

Democrats have a raft of issues they need to work on. But the kind of rural red voter we've been talking about here won't listen to them no matter what they do. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

59 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I had a chance to spend time with these voters this past weekend. This is spot-on. They absolutely do NOT want to hear from Dem candidates on policy like this. The very thought of something like BBB brought out the word "socialism." And every conversation that was remotely political included the word "Obama." 

 

Democrats have a raft of issues they need to work on. But the kind of rural red voter we've been talking about here won't listen to them no matter what they do. 

Absolutely. Trying to appeal to these voters is a hopeless endeavor for Democrats. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try, it just means they won't yield any political benefits for passing measures like the child tax credit family's have collected for the past year. That program benefitted those voters as much or more than the Urban base of the Democratic Party. Will it yield any political benefits? No.

 

America's Democracy is tumbling hopelessly downhill. The further we go, the more politically toxic it will be. If anybody thinks politics are toxic now, wait another 12 years.

[NM11046]

Dems need to focus on the securing the PR and other latin population that we lost in this last election - as well as white women and get a more engaged, dependable voting base.  AA women can't continue to carry the load.

[Born N Bled Red]

On 1/7/2022 at 3:07 PM, RedDenver said:

You replied, so you can stop with the "red herring" fallacy nonsense. Either engage in the discussion with me or not, but don't hide behind claiming a fallacy you are contributing to.

 

I went back 24 hours in this thread and here's all your posts with links in them so that I'm not misrepresenting you:

Yes, it's a Trump ad from Feb 2020. I think we all agree on Repub messaging, so I don't think there's a disagreement here.

 

This is from Sep 2021. None of the 3 ads in that article is the Dem party demeaning rural America, which I think we also agree on. (I'll come back to what I think you're intending by this link below.)

 

This is an article about how storytelling is powerful for campaigning. I think we can all agree on that.

 

Alright, let's say I completely misunderstood your previous posts and take a fresh look at your assertion (I've bolded).

 

I agree with you here. I'd love for Dems to own their failures and do better. But that brings us to the crux of the issue: What are the Dem failures they need to own?

 

I think you're trying to claim that the ads directed at Hispanics in the Hill article are one of the failures that Dems need to own. Yes?

 

I've admitted in a previous post that I got two concepts combined and made a good faith effort to say so and separate them. And I'm taking a fresh look at your assertion in this post and trying to get to the core of the discussion. You can keep saying that I'm intending to derail the conversation or that I'm offended or whatever, but it just makes it hard to take anything you're saying seriously.

 

Ok, quick 5 minutes here. I'll try to boil this down. 

 

The Issue

1) Democrats need to find a way to compete in rural America or they will be locked out of power in the house and senate, and state legislatures across the nation. 

------ I think we all agree on this yes?

 

The History

2) Both Dem and Rep economic policy has left rural America behind since the new deal. Worse yet, Decocrats under Carter failed to help the rural economy during the 80s farm crisis. 

 

3) Dems have not fought to maintain or reclaim rural areas of the electoral map since the 60s choosing instead to focus on urban and minority voters. They were fine with losing rural until recently when gerrymandering and the Senate have made getting shut out of power a real possibility. At the same time, it became en vogue for coastal democrats to chide rural people for not understanding economics and voting against their own self interest, while also leaning into the redneck racist stereotype.

 

4) As the Dems chose, strategically, to not campaign in rural areas, or build party infrastructure, conservatism has been allowed to spread rampantly with no counter voice. This has further eroded dem support in rural areas and enhanced rep talking points. Now even legislation passed by dems that benefit rural america are administered by reps at the local level, robbing dems of any credit. There is no local face of the dem party in rural America. This is akin to the US pullnig all its resources and going home after WW2 rather than engage in the cold war. The US would have simply ceded all that territory to Russia, just as the Dems have ceded all of rural now to the Reps. 

 

5) Rural people do not see a bill like Build Back Better as a rural benefit. The past 40 years have shown rural people that when bills that addresses housing, poverty, or infrastructure is passed at the national level, the bulk of those funds on a per capita basis are directed to urban areas. So rural people HAVE seen less benefit. 

 

6) (Disclosure, this is a pet peeve of mine and something I have not addressed before) Politicians think they are so damn clever when they name bills like Build Back Better. It makes the bill less tangible and makes it that much easier to paint for opponents. This is part of the reason Reps have built such resistance to BBB in rural areas. It is a nebulous, intangible, idea. Go talk to rural people about the actual policies of the law and they will be super receptive. 

 

7) Republicans are able to neglect rural economic issues because they offer the hot button talking points, guns, abortion, and fear. It is so much easier to manipulate economically unstable people by fear. Republicans actually have a vested interest in not solving rural economic issues. 

 

Solutions

8) To now try to compete in rural areas. Dems have to understand rural Americans. They have to recognize that yes, rural has been getting the shaft for 40 years, that yes rural people are skeptical of any bill that is "good for everyone." They need to appeal directly to rural voters. There is no way that a bill named, "Spending Rural tax dollars on Giving Rural People Access to Broadband Internet," does not gain rural support. The Affordable Care Act could have been branded Health Insurance for America's Farmers and Entrepreneurs in rural areas to gain better support. Messaging matters. 

 

9) They need to counter Rep social messaging with tangible economic policy and messaging. Combat "They'll take your guns (patently false)," with "We're giving all rural communities $500,000 to improve their community school facilities."  ETC. Real, tangible, economic policy solution. That is designed and marketed specifically for rural people and communities. I've provided other examples in another post.  

 

10) They need to immediately invest DNC dollars in rebuilding rural party infrastructure. Start in places most recently lost like Eastern Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan. Identify potential candidates, support them, train them in leadership, elevate them within their state. Make them present, make them visible, make them competent in the roles they fill. Provide a local face to the party that can connect with voters rather than being the scary coastal left wing boogey man. Find rural leaders. The republican side has huge amounts of rural infrastructure to do this. 

 

Summary

 

11) Reclaiming rural America and the populist movement will be difficult, it will take resources, and it will take actual, visible, economic results. It will be costly. But this is what must be done to compete. The alternative is the democrats remain locked out of power and are unable to enact change or prevent harmful change to the country. Which cost is greater?

 

(Disclaimer) I've provided factual data, sources, and representation of all my claims throughout this conversation. If you care to rebut any of my claims, please provide more than "I spoke with my inbred redneck cousin over the holidays. He got drunk and pretended to be Groot, except instead of saying, "I am Groot," to everything, he said "Let's Go Brandon TO EVERY SINGLE THING SAID." 

 

Fortunately, not all rural people are like that.