The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[BigRedBuster]

23 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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.

I tried really hard.

 

 

And.....I couldn't find anything I disagreed with here.

[knapplc]

I'm of the opinion that people should not vote against their self-interest. They should educate themselves, stop giving a certain political party a carte blanche pass on literally anything they want to do as long as there's an "R" next to their name, and actually vote on issues, not emotion.

 

Because until that happens, the Dems can spend billions of dollars in outreach and better naming of bills and it won't matter. Those voters won't give them the time of day if they're a Democrat. 

[Archy1221]

22 minutes ago, knapplc said:

I'm of the opinion that people should not vote against their self-interest. They should educate themselves, stop giving a certain political party a carte blanche pass on literally anything they want to do as long as there's an "R" next to their name, and actually vote on issues, not emotion.

 

Because until that happens, the Dems can spend billions of dollars in outreach and better naming of bills and it won't matter. Those voters won't give them the time of day if they're a Democrat. 

Attention all African Americans.  Here is some good advice for you:  quickly taking the blue pill which has kept many in your communities dependent on the governments tata’s.  Open your eyes and ears, take the red pill and actually vote for yourself and not far left liberal elites.  

[RedDenver]

58 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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. 

Not sure I agree with Dems left rural America behind. Especially blaming Carter for the 80's farm crisis given he left office in Jan 1981.

 

58 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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.

I don't agree with this spin. Rural people were voting against Dems long before the analysis on them voting against their own economic interests.

 

58 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

5) Rural people do not see a bill like Build Back Better as a rural benefit.

Dems could message better, but rural people not seeing benefits to themselves in bills is mostly their own fault.

 

58 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Go talk to rural people about the actual policies of the law and they will be super receptive. 

There's been a number of posts in this thread showing that it's actually the opposite. People vote based far less on policies and are rarely interested in candidates that campaign on policies, especially in the current hyper-partisan world of politics. I'd be really excited if people actually voted for candidates based on policy, but it's almost all based on the letter by a candidate's name.

 

58 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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. 

Agreed. Again Dems could message better, but rural people not seeing that Repubs are against their economics interests is not a Dem party problem but a rural people understanding problem.

[BigRedBuster]

14 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Agreed. Again Dems could message better, but rural people not seeing that Repubs are against their economics interests is not a Dem party problem but a rural people understanding problem.

Because of that, it's automatically a Dem party problem.  Nobody has the ability to change that other than the Dem party.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

I'm of the opinion that people should not vote against their self-interest.

Really?  We are all asked all the time to vote against our self-interests for a candidate.

 

I'm asked to vote for policies that help inner city urban areas that would increase my taxes.

 

I'm asked to vote for policies that protect the top 1% earners so they aren't taxed more.

 

I'm not sure how I should vote if I'm asked to vote for my interests.

[Born N Bled Red]

46 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

2 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

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. 

Not sure I agree with Dems left rural America behind. Especially blaming Carter for the 80's farm crisis given he left office in Jan 1981.

 

It was Carter's embargo that began the crash. Trump would have faced similar with China, but he and the Reps wrote checks to farmers to avoid a similar crash. 

 

Farmers Race to Feed the World: “Go Big or Get Out” 

(1970 - 1979)

• U.S. grain reserves were lowered which in turn raised the price of grain.
• Poor weather conditions resulted in diminished yields overseas. Demand for U.S. agricultural products exploded.
• The Soviet Union negotiated a multiyear contract for wheat and feed grains in 1972.
• In 1973, President Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz responded by calling upon American farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow," and “get big or get out."  Producers took his words to heart and the race to feed the world was on.
• As land values increased, lenders and farmers alike mistakenly concluded the ideal conditions would become the norm. Borrowing became the order of the day and there were plenty of lenders eager to accommodate optimistic farmers.
• The Federal Reserve changes their lending policies to hold the line on inflation. The Fed's actions made the cost of borrowing money prohibitive for all Americans. But the effect on farm families and rural bankers was especially severe.
• In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and President Jimmy Carter enacts a grain embargo stopping shipments of grain to the Soviet Union. The embargo wasn’t lifted until 1980 when President Ronald Reagan took office.

Iowa farmers struggled throughout the 1980s in an attempt to save their family farms. It took protests down the streets of Washington D.C. and loud rumblings of discontent from all corners of the country for the federal government to step in and change agricultural and lending policies to help out the Iowa farmer.

 

The Farm Crisis of the 1980s | Iowa PBS

[RedDenver]

20 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

It was Carter's embargo that began the crash. Trump would have faced similar with China, but he and the Reps wrote checks to farmers to avoid a similar crash. 

 

Farmers Race to Feed the World: “Go Big or Get Out” 

(1970 - 1979)

• U.S. grain reserves were lowered which in turn raised the price of grain.
• Poor weather conditions resulted in diminished yields overseas. Demand for U.S. agricultural products exploded.
• The Soviet Union negotiated a multiyear contract for wheat and feed grains in 1972.
• In 1973, President Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz responded by calling upon American farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow," and “get big or get out."  Producers took his words to heart and the race to feed the world was on.
• As land values increased, lenders and farmers alike mistakenly concluded the ideal conditions would become the norm. Borrowing became the order of the day and there were plenty of lenders eager to accommodate optimistic farmers.
• The Federal Reserve changes their lending policies to hold the line on inflation. The Fed's actions made the cost of borrowing money prohibitive for all Americans. But the effect on farm families and rural bankers was especially severe.
• In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and President Jimmy Carter enacts a grain embargo stopping shipments of grain to the Soviet Union. The embargo wasn’t lifted until 1980 when President Ronald Reagan took office.

Iowa farmers struggled throughout the 1980s in an attempt to save their family farms. It took protests down the streets of Washington D.C. and loud rumblings of discontent from all corners of the country for the federal government to step in and change agricultural and lending policies to help out the Iowa farmer.

 

The Farm Crisis of the 1980s | Iowa PBS

There's WAY more that happened than just the embargo:

Banking and the Agricultural Problems of the 1980s

 

Quote

Agriculture is by nature a cyclical industry. The cycle in its most simplistic form
traces the following course: when crops are plentiful, prices drop, so plantings are reduced
the next year. The attendant reduction in supply then generally causes prices to rise. The
higher prices lead to increased plantings and excessive production; prices decline; and the
cycle repeats itself

Quote

The boom in the 1970s was stimulated essentially by a substantial rise in crop prices
during the first half of the decade (see figure 8.1). An important component of the boom
one that would have a significant effect on the problems of the 1980swas the escalating
value of farm real estate. There were several factors that combined to bring about the

increased demand for and rising price of farmland, including inflation, rising farm income
(partly caused by farm enlargement), the export market, and credit availability.

 

It's interesting to me that both parties contributed to the farm crisis including Reagan's administration going all free-market and not simply trying to bailout the farmers, but you choose to point at the Dems and Carter. Reagan even campaigned heavily in 1980 on how he'd save the farmers, but then he avoided talking about it in his 1984 campaign even as the crisis had gotten worse.

[knapplc]

57 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

It was Carter's embargo that began the crash. Trump would have faced similar with China, but he and the Reps wrote checks to farmers to avoid a similar crash. 

 

Farmers Race to Feed the World: “Go Big or Get Out” 

(1970 - 1979)

• U.S. grain reserves were lowered which in turn raised the price of grain.
• Poor weather conditions resulted in diminished yields overseas. Demand for U.S. agricultural products exploded.
• The Soviet Union negotiated a multiyear contract for wheat and feed grains in 1972.
• In 1973, President Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz responded by calling upon American farmers to plant "fencerow to fencerow," and “get big or get out."  Producers took his words to heart and the race to feed the world was on.
• As land values increased, lenders and farmers alike mistakenly concluded the ideal conditions would become the norm. Borrowing became the order of the day and there were plenty of lenders eager to accommodate optimistic farmers.
• The Federal Reserve changes their lending policies to hold the line on inflation. The Fed's actions made the cost of borrowing money prohibitive for all Americans. But the effect on farm families and rural bankers was especially severe.
• In 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and President Jimmy Carter enacts a grain embargo stopping shipments of grain to the Soviet Union. The embargo wasn’t lifted until 1980 when President Ronald Reagan took office.

Iowa farmers struggled throughout the 1980s in an attempt to save their family farms. It took protests down the streets of Washington D.C. and loud rumblings of discontent from all corners of the country for the federal government to step in and change agricultural and lending policies to help out the Iowa farmer.

 

The Farm Crisis of the 1980s | Iowa PBS

 

 

 

From 1969 through 1993, Republicans were in the White House for all but four years.

 

And you put all the farmers' problems on Carter? And claim farm policies from that era are why rural red voters won't vote for Democrats?

 

C'mon, man!

[Born N Bled Red]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There's WAY more that happened than just the embargo:

Banking and the Agricultural Problems of the 1980s

 

 

It's interesting to me that both parties contributed to the farm crisis including Reagan's administration going all free-market and not simply trying to bailout the farmers, but you choose to point at the Dems and Carter. Reagan even campaigned heavily in 1980 on how he'd save the farmers, but then he avoided talking about it in his 1984 campaign even as the crisis had gotten worse.

 

Please start on page 262 of the source you cited, starting here. 

 

Increased demand for farmland was also fueled by a sharp rise in farm exports in the
1970s, an important component of the decades agricultural prosperity. In 1970, exports of
agricultural products were $6.7 billion (approximately 11 percent of U.S. farm production);
nine years later they had risen to $31.9 billion (nearly 22 percent of U.S. production).12 This
jump in exports was stimulated by increased worldwide global liquidity, rising incomes,

and several crop shortfalls in other parts of the world.13 Another reason foreign demand ex-
panded was that the cost of U.S. crops declined as a result of a depreciating dollar and re-
duced U.S. price-support levels.14 In 1980, the export market for U.S. farm commodities

looked so promising that Secretary of Agriculture Robert Bergland declared, The era of
chronic overproduction . . . is over.15
 

So, an embargo would pretty much destroy that demand on exports that stimulated the economy in the 70s no? Yes. OK.

 

- Farming is cyclical on its own, yes. The 80s crisis was created by politics. Not the natural cyclical nature of agriculture. 

 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

From 1969 through 1993, Republicans were in the White House for all but four years.

 

And you put all the farmers' problems on Carter? And claim farm policies from that era are why rural red voters won't vote for Democrats?

 

C'mon, man!

 

There is a strong reason why Carter was a 1 term president and is derided as a "dumb farmer" by other farmers to this day. The democrats of the day were so bad, they squandered what should have been a seizmic shift in political alignment with the Nixon/Ford scandal. Anyways. 

 

At this point that's water under the bridge. Dems lost rural. They gotta figure out how to get it back. Full stop. Blaming the voters won't do it. 

[RedDenver]

Just now, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Please start on page 262 of the source you cited, starting here. 

 

Increased demand for farmland was also fueled by a sharp rise in farm exports in the
1970s, an important component of the decades agricultural prosperity. In 1970, exports of
agricultural products were $6.7 billion (approximately 11 percent of U.S. farm production);
nine years later they had risen to $31.9 billion (nearly 22 percent of U.S. production).12 This
jump in exports was stimulated by increased worldwide global liquidity, rising incomes,

and several crop shortfalls in other parts of the world.13 Another reason foreign demand ex-
panded was that the cost of U.S. crops declined as a result of a depreciating dollar and re-
duced U.S. price-support levels.14 In 1980, the export market for U.S. farm commodities

looked so promising that Secretary of Agriculture Robert Bergland declared, The era of
chronic overproduction . . . is over.15
 

So, an embargo would pretty much destroy that demand on exports that stimulated the economy in the 70s no? Yes. OK.

That's one factor among many. Debt and interest rates played a far greater role as evidenced in that source by the fact that crop prices only declined slightly and in fact stayed above their 1977 levels.

 

Just now, Born N Bled Red said:

- Farming is cyclical on its own, yes. The 80s crisis was created by politics. Not the natural cyclical nature of agriculture. 

There's been tons of agricultural boom and bust cycles. Politics certainly had a role, but you're trying really hard not to look at the other factors.

 

And even if it was mostly politics, how are the Repubs getting a free pass here?

[Born N Bled Red]

Just now, RedDenver said:

That's one factor among many. Debt and interest rates played a far greater role as evidenced in that source by the fact that crop prices only declined slightly and in fact stayed above their 1977 levels.

 

There's been tons of agricultural boom and bust cycles. Politics certainly had a role, but you're trying really hard not to look at the other factors.

 

And even if it was mostly politics, how are the Repubs getting a free pass here?

 

Dems were in power when it started Reps were in power as it got better. They also managed to shift the narrative to social issues rather than economic in rural areas. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Dems were in power when it started Reps were in power as it got better. They also managed to shift the narrative to social issues rather than economic in rural areas. 

Repubs were in power as it got worse too including not doing bailing out farmers when the crisis was at it's peak. Yes, Repubs managed to shift to social issues to avoid having to discuss economic issues, but that doesn't magically mean Repubs shouldn't be held to the same standard for the economic issues as the Dems.

[Born N Bled Red]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

Repubs were in power as it got worse too including not doing bailing out farmers when the crisis was at it's peak. Yes, Repubs managed to shift to social issues to avoid having to discuss economic issues, but that doesn't magically mean Repubs shouldn't be held to the same standard for the economic issues as the Dems.

 

You're arguing something I agree with you on. They should be, but aren't by rural voters due to their ability to shift to social talking points. You and I can agree on that till we're blue in the face., but doing so won't change how rural people vote, which is what the Democrats must do. 

 

Unfortunately "the Republicans screwed you over too!" Isn't a great campaign slogan.