The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[knapplc]

4 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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.

 

Come on. You admit that Republicans have been in charge far longer than Dems, when the problem for rural red voters got worse FAR MORE than under Dems, and you persist in this notion that Dems should make amends to those voters for the ills that occurred over a better than 90% Republican rule.

 

This is nonsense. It's a non-starter. You may as well blame some flabby 50-year-old for his failure to attract a supermodel as a girlfriend.

 

I have no idea why you're persisting in this nonsense. Anyone who knows Nebraskans living outside of Omaha and Lincoln knows there is literally zero a Democrat can do to obtain their vote. Anyone who's talked to those people, lived among them and understands them knows they believe what they believe not because of Jimmy Carter 40+ years ago (laughable!) but because of who they intrinsically are.

 

You talk like someone who wants to perpetuate a stereotype rather than someone who actually knows or talks to these people on a daily basis.

 

It's basic conservative talking points. The Dems are to blame for all the ills. The Dems need to make amends. Conservatives are the victims and have no need to budge from their stance.

 

This isn't a conversation. This is propaganda.

[Born N Bled Red]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

Come on. You admit that Republicans have been in charge far longer than Dems, when the problem for rural red voters got worse FAR MORE than under Dems, and you persist in this notion that Dems should make amends to those voters for the ills that occurred over a better than 90% Republican rule.

 

This is nonsense. It's a non-starter. You may as well blame some flabby 50-year-old for his failure to attract a supermodel as a girlfriend.

 

I have no idea why you're persisting in this nonsense. Anyone who knows Nebraskans living outside of Omaha and Lincoln knows there is literally zero a Democrat can do to obtain their vote. Anyone who's talked to those people, lived among them and understands them knows they believe what they believe not because of Jimmy Carter 40+ years ago (laughable!) but because of who they intrinsically are.

 

You talk like someone who wants to perpetuate a stereotype rather than someone who actually knows or talks to these people on a daily basis.

 

It's basic conservative talking points. The Dems are to blame for all the ills. The Dems need to make amends. Conservatives are the victims and have no need to budge from their stance.

 

This isn't a conversation. This is propaganda.

 

Dude you're so biased you can't see the forest through the woods. 

 

Nothing I have said is wrong. If Dems don't figure out how to appeal to rural voters they lose. Do you like losing? Your entire opposition to my conversation comes down to "they have to say they're sorry first. I refuse to acknowledge anything could be my party's fault." 

 

You have provided no factual detail to your argument other than  your supposed personal experience. I'm sorry a rural person hurt you. However painting any population with a single broad stroke and thinking they are all the same is wrong. 

 

Like I said. If Democrats aren't willing to fight for rural votes they lose. If that's your official position don't bi+ch when Mitch ramrods through a bunch of s#!tty a$$ legislation under his next super majority and further stacks the Supreme Court with judges. You're already waiving the white flag. Take the terms of your surrender with some dignity. 

 

I don't want to go down without a fight. Rural is where this battle needs to be fought. 

 

Or... since you're so incredibly good at shooting down any proposed solution without a modicum of facts or research. How do you propose Democrats avoid being shut out of power? I'll wait with baited breath as you formulate your response. 

[knapplc]

8 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Nothing I have said is wrong.

 

Any blame laid at the feet of Jimmy Carter is wrong. Today's rural voters don't even think about him. Obama, Hillary, AOC, "Washington" ... that's who they talk about. Even the sources you cite claiming Carter is a problem for Dems don't support the argument. 

 

8 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

If Dems don't figure out how to appeal to rural voters they lose.

 

Dems currently control the White House, Senate and House. 

 

8 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

you're so biased

 

I'm telling you I know the people you're talking about, and your take is wrong. Disagreeing with you is not a bias.

 

8 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

Your entire opposition to my conversation comes down to "they have to say they're sorry first. I refuse to acknowledge anything could be my party's fault." 

 

No, which begs the question - have you even been reading my responses? My opposition to your conversation is that you put the entire onus on the Dems, when it's those voters who turned away from the Dems, instigated and reinforced by decades of right-wing media. Dems cannot dent that in the current political climate. It's not defeatist, it's realist, and it's borne out by the rural results of recent elections. This is another area where you're wrong - no amount of messaging or outreach is going to reach these people. 

 

Another thing I disagree with is the caricature of rural red voters that you're using. They are not open-minded, noble but aggrieved people. They will not listen to Dem messaging because the Dems put boots on the ground and reach out. They will not give Dem policies - even those that greatly benefit them - a fair shake.  

 

To the bold - I'm not a Democrat. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Any blame laid at the feet of Jimmy Carter is wrong. Today's rural voters don't even think about him. Obama, Hillary, AOC, "Washington" ... that's who they talk about. Even the sources you cite claiming Carter is a problem for Dems don't support the argument. 

 

 

Dems currently control the White House, Senate and House. 

 

 

I'm telling you I know the people you're talking about, and your take is wrong. Disagreeing with you is not a bias.

 

 

No, which begs the question - have you even been reading my responses? My opposition to your conversation is that you put the entire onus on the Dems, when it's those voters who turned away from the Dems, instigated and reinforced by decades of right-wing media. Dems cannot dent that in the current political climate. It's not defeatist, it's realist, and it's borne out by the rural results of recent elections. This is another area where you're wrong - no amount of messaging or outreach is going to reach these people. 

 

Another thing I disagree with is the caricature of rural red voters that you're using. They are not open-minded, noble but aggrieved people. They will not listen to Dem messaging because the Dems put boots on the ground and reach out. They will not give Dem policies - even those that greatly benefit them - a fair shake.  

 

To the bold - I'm not a Democrat. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska Initiative 431, 430, 429- expanded gambling. Opposed by the conservatives in the state, passed by the people by a 2-1 margin

 

Nebraska Initiative 428 - Over 700,000 Nebraskans, or over 83%, voted FOR Initiative 428 in the 2020 election to reform payday loans and cap interest at 36% APR (annual percentage rate) (1, 2)., This landslide victory over predatory lending practices in Nebraska resulted from years of legal research, policy advocacy, and community organizing at the state and national level. - Opposed by Nebraska conservatives passed by the people. 

 

Nebraska initiative 427 - Medicaid expansion - Opposed by conservatives, passed with 53% of the vote

 

Nebraska initiative 425 - raise the minimum wage - approved by more than 60% of Nebraska voters
 

Nebraska Initiative 424 - Nebraska Measure 424, the Affirmative Action Initiative, was on the ballot in Nebraska on November 4, 2008, as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the any political subdivision and institutes of higher learning from discriminating against, or giving preferential treatment to any person based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Supporters described the impact of the measure as banning government-sponsored racial preferences and opponents described it as being anti-affirmative action. - Passed with nearly 58% of the vote. 

 

 

So you see, when the actual issues are pushed to the voters. The voters, even in Nebraska where registered republicans outnumber democrats 593954 to 354629, left leaning policies still pass. The problem isn't the voters. Its the messaging, platform, and nonexistence of the party in rural areas, and the lack of quality candidates that leave Democrats uncompetitive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Nebraska Initiative 431, 430, 429- expanded gambling. Opposed by the conservatives in the state, passed by the people by a 2-1 margin

 

Nebraska Initiative 428 - Over 700,000 Nebraskans, or over 83%, voted FOR Initiative 428 in the 2020 election to reform payday loans and cap interest at 36% APR (annual percentage rate) (1, 2)., This landslide victory over predatory lending practices in Nebraska resulted from years of legal research, policy advocacy, and community organizing at the state and national level. - Opposed by Nebraska conservatives passed by the people. 

 

Nebraska initiative 427 - Medicaid expansion - Opposed by conservatives, passed with 53% of the vote

 

Nebraska initiative 425 - raise the minimum wage - approved by more than 60% of Nebraska voters
 

Nebraska Initiative 424 - Nebraska Measure 424, the Affirmative Action Initiative, was on the ballot in Nebraska on November 4, 2008, as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the any political subdivision and institutes of higher learning from discriminating against, or giving preferential treatment to any person based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Supporters described the impact of the measure as banning government-sponsored racial preferences and opponents described it as being anti-affirmative action. - Passed with nearly 58% of the vote. 

 

 

So you see, when the actual issues are pushed to the voters. The voters, even in Nebraska where registered republicans outnumber democrats 593954 to 354629, left leaning policies still pass. The problem isn't the voters. Its the messaging, platform, and nonexistence of the party in rural areas, and the lack of quality candidates that leave Democrats uncompetitive. 

 

 

 

So you're citing Nebraska measures that were promulgated by local politicians as evidence that rural red voters are open to national Democrat measures.

 

And you're dropping the mic on that.

 

OK. 

[Born N Bled Red]

49 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

So you're citing Nebraska measures that were promulgated by local politicians as evidence that rural red voters are open to national Democrat measures.

 

And you're dropping the mic on that.

 

OK. 

 

In light of the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence to support any of your claims (as you instructed others, cite your souces.), or any solution to the issue of your own, yes I am. 

 

You should work with the Republicans on repealing Obamacare. Your contributions to this discussion have been just as effective as their contributions to Healthcare reform. 

[knapplc]

On 1/5/2022 at 1:24 PM, Born N Bled Red said:

 

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. 

 

 

This is where this conversation started. The bold is where I disagree. I know too many rural red voters to believe they bear zero responsibility in their plight. They vote red, they will not give Democrat candidates a chance, and they consume Fox and right-wing radio. 

 

That you describe the left in such a way speaks to your mindset. That the very next line indicates how those voters vote against their own self-interest, and continue to do so as their plight worsens - indicates you understand the problem is not just a Democrat messaging problem.

 

I agree with you on a lot of this. We've spent a week spinning off on tangents because you will not concede that both the Dems and the voters themselves are part of the problem. You continue to insist it's entirely on the Dems, ignoring the reality that those voters won't listen to Dem candidates. 

 

Citing local ballot measures is not evidence that red voters will listen to national Democrats. That's important because that's the entire premise of this conversation. 

 

If you want evidence supporting my claim, look at who those voters elect. I can provide links if you don't believe that they vote red, every time. That's not a Dem issue, that's a them issue. No amount of messaging is going to fix that. You'd need to dismantle the entire right-wing propaganda machine first. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Come on. You admit that Republicans have been in charge far longer than Dems, when the problem for rural red voters got worse FAR MORE than under Dems, and you persist in this notion that Dems should make amends to those voters for the ills that occurred over a better than 90% Republican rule.

 

This is nonsense. It's a non-starter. You may as well blame some flabby 50-year-old for his failure to attract a supermodel as a girlfriend.

 

I have no idea why you're persisting in this nonsense. Anyone who knows Nebraskans living outside of Omaha and Lincoln knows there is literally zero a Democrat can do to obtain their vote. Anyone who's talked to those people, lived among them and understands them knows they believe what they believe not because of Jimmy Carter 40+ years ago (laughable!) but because of who they intrinsically are.

 

You talk like someone who wants to perpetuate a stereotype rather than someone who actually knows or talks to these people on a daily basis.

 

It's basic conservative talking points. The Dems are to blame for all the ills. The Dems need to make amends. Conservatives are the victims and have no need to budge from their stance.

 

This isn't a conversation. This is propaganda.

 

No. It's a conversation. A very good one. If you'll go back to Born N Bled's long position paper of a post, he (or she) went to a fair amount of effort to outline the 50 years that brought us to where we are —exactly the mixed bag of credit, blame, and still debated issues that one would want in an intelligent conversation. 

 

If you'll read the room, posters are agreeing with many of these observations and pushing back on others. Again, that's what good conversations do. 

 

The conclusion that Democrats made mistakes in the past, lost opportunities along the way, and need to do something different isn't even controversial within the halls of the DNC. Links have been provided. Whether you agree with them or not, the sources are reputable and generally smarter than we are. 

 

I've been through this myself with you. You decide a poster is your adversary and immediately get your panties in self-righteous bunch, then attack with flailing hyperbole like "nonsense" and "propaganda" and insinuations that the poster has a weird hidden agenda. You are on record as thinking posters who don't agree with you on HuskerBoard might be rightwing plants.

 

As someone once said, "Come on."

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

If you'll read the room, posters are agreeing with many of these observations and pushing back on others. Again, that's what good conversations do. 

 

 

As am I. Come on.

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I've been through this myself with you. You decide a poster is your adversary and immediately get your panties in self-righteous bunch, then attack with flailing hyperbole like "nonsense" and "propaganda" and insinuations that the poster has a weird hidden agenda. You are on record as thinking posters who don't agree with you on HuskerBoard might be rightwing plants.

 

 

This is hilarious, by the way. You're overreacting to what is a good ongoing conversation with this.

 

As someone who fancies themselves the adult in the room... this ain't it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

As am I. Come on.

 

Most folks are avoiding phraseology like this:

 

This is nonsense. It's a non-starter. You may as well blame some flabby 50-year-old for his failure to attract a supermodel as a girlfriend.

 

I have no idea why you're persisting in this nonsense. 

 

You talk like someone who wants to perpetuate a stereotype rather than someone who actually knows or talks to these people on a daily basis.

 

It's basic conservative talking points. 

 

This isn't a conversation. This is propaganda.

 

 

As I read it, BNBR chose his (or her) words to preclude this kind of willful exaggeration. 

 

Again, I'm seeing zero people suggesting GOP and rightwing disinformation isn't hugely responsible for the increasingly sharp rural divide. Of course government distrust in the hinterlands long predates Fox News, but Democrats used to be better at picking up the populist and underdog mantle. And if we're talking propaganda, it would be unprecedented to suggest past Democratic policies are beyond criticism and culpability. 

 

As I'm reading the pushback, most of us believe the Democrats have lost the messaging battle, but some of you think they should just stop trying altogether because nothing can bring the brainwashed back. And uhm....that in itself is a problematic message, whether you think it's true or not. 

 

And since rural America is outnumbered, perhaps we should bring the conversation back to the urban and suburban whites who also made Trump's election possible precisely because they DID vote their self-interest; lower taxes, economic nationalism, and the open embrace of the already privileged. 

 

The irony is that the most socialist and communist facet of America is the local grain Co-Op, government farm subsidies, and federal intervention in global ag prices. Rural America's self-interest is literally wrapped in communism.

 

Now that's a fun talking point. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

41 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

As someone who fancies themselves the adult in the room... this ain't it.

 

Well I am older than you. Not many people can say that.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

As I read it, BNBR chose his (or her) words to preclude this kind of willful exaggeration. 

 

 

You may want to reread some of their words. They're not nearly as non-inflammatory as you want to pretend. 

 

What I've been saying vis a vis Democrat messaging is that this needs to be a two-way street. No supermodel is going to date a flabby 50-year-old no matter how hard he woos her. It's a non-starter, just as it's a non-starter for some national Dem candidate (which is what we started talking about) to speak to rural red voters. I have vast experience with these people. They have zero intentions of listening to Dems. If they refuse to listen, there is nothing the Dems can do. That may be problematic, but it's the reality. 

 

The onus cannot simply be on the Dems. Those voters have to open their minds. History shows that they don't, and won't, by the people they vote for.

[Born N Bled Red]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

This is where this conversation started. The bold is where I disagree. I know too many rural red voters to believe they bear zero responsibility in their plight. They vote red, they will not give Democrat candidates a chance, and they consume Fox and right-wing radio. 

 

That you describe the left in such a way speaks to your mindset. That the very next line indicates how those voters vote against their own self-interest, and continue to do so as their plight worsens - indicates you understand the problem is not just a Democrat messaging problem.

 

I agree with you on a lot of this. We've spent a week spinning off on tangents because you will not concede that both the Dems and the voters themselves are part of the problem. You continue to insist it's entirely on the Dems, ignoring the reality that those voters won't listen to Dem candidates. 

 

Citing local ballot measures is not evidence that red voters will listen to national Democrats. That's important because that's the entire premise of this conversation. 

 

If you want evidence supporting my claim, look at who those voters elect. I can provide links if you don't believe that they vote red, every time. That's not a Dem issue, that's a them issue. No amount of messaging is going to fix that. You'd need to dismantle the entire right-wing propaganda machine first. 

 

 

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

This is where this conversation started. The bold is where I disagree. I know too many rural red voters to believe they bear zero responsibility in their plight. They vote red, they will not give Democrat candidates a chance, and they consume Fox and right-wing radio. 

 

That you describe the left in such a way speaks to your mindset. That the very next line indicates how those voters vote against their own self-interest, and continue to do so as their plight worsens - indicates you understand the problem is not just a Democrat messaging problem.

 

I agree with you on a lot of this. We've spent a week spinning off on tangents because you will not concede that both the Dems and the voters themselves are part of the problem. You continue to insist it's entirely on the Dems, ignoring the reality that those voters won't listen to Dem candidates. 

 

Citing local ballot measures is not evidence that red voters will listen to national Democrats. That's important because that's the entire premise of this conversation. 

 

If you want evidence supporting my claim, look at who those voters elect. I can provide links if you don't believe that they vote red, every time. That's not a Dem issue, that's a them issue. No amount of messaging is going to fix that. You'd need to dismantle the entire right-wing propaganda machine first. 

 

Don't press tab, enter as you are typing FYI. Mods can delete. 

[Born N Bled Red]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

This is where this conversation started. The bold is where I disagree. I know too many rural red voters to believe they bear zero responsibility in their plight. They vote red, they will not give Democrat candidates a chance, and they consume Fox and right-wing radio. 

 

That you describe the left in such a way speaks to your mindset. That the very next line indicates how those voters vote against their own self-interest, and continue to do so as their plight worsens - indicates you understand the problem is not just a Democrat messaging problem.

 

I agree with you on a lot of this. We've spent a week spinning off on tangents because you will not concede that both the Dems and the voters themselves are part of the problem. You continue to insist it's entirely on the Dems, ignoring the reality that those voters won't listen to Dem candidates. 

 

Citing local ballot measures is not evidence that red voters will listen to national Democrats. That's important because that's the entire premise of this conversation. 

 

If you want evidence supporting my claim, look at who those voters elect. I can provide links if you don't believe that they vote red, every time. That's not a Dem issue, that's a them issue. No amount of messaging is going to fix that. You'd need to dismantle the entire right-wing propaganda machine first. 

 

Thank you so much for this response. It has provided much clarity. - Before I move on, I challenge you to read the entirety of this response before replying because one thing that has become obviously clear is 

1) You do not read responses. You skim them looking for something you can disagree with and then go about attacking that item rather than attempt to understand the full response.

 

If you did read a full response. You would have never made a claim like:

2) "That you describe the left in such a way speaks to your mindset." and "You will not concede that both the Dems and the voters themselves are part of the problem."

 

      --- This is categorically and demonstratively false. I have MANY times indicated that the voters vote against their own interests this is a known phenomena. I've never argued against it, but attempted to explain why it is in historic terms.

 

3. You have strong bias against rural people shaded by the people you know. A bias which you seem to have applied to me, insinuating that I like the people you mention here: "I know too many rural red voters to believe they bear zero responsibility in their plight." Feel that voters bear no responsibility in their plight. You insist this despite amble evidence to the contrary and my statements clearly acknowledging they do. 

 

4. You have not studied electoral maps of the last 40 years as the county level. Counties that have been reliable blue since the 40s swung HARD for Trump. Northeast Iowa is a great example of this. Democrats are losing territory in rural areas NOW. My historical analysis on this is not to explain these recent changes but to identify the events that put the reddening of rural America in motion. And yes! There are still people who blame Carter for the 80s. The boom of the 70s was under Republican leadership. Carter got elected and the bubble popped. BOOM. Republicans then said. "See you had it good, then you voted for a Dem and they screwed everthing up, now we have to come in and fix it." The rode this until they were able to change the narrative to social issues. 

 

5 You seem to have an issue with identifing that there are two problems that we are discussing. 

     - The first is that Dems need to reach rural voters 

     - The second is the plight of the rural population 

One impacts the other, but they are two separate issues that you seem to have problems with discussing in isolation. The fact that dems need to reach rural voters is an issue only dems can fix. 

 

6. You don't fully understand politics. All politics are local. National politics are local. 

 - The local  STATEWIDE ballot measures I cited are 100% evidence that red voters will listen to national Democrats and vote based on issues. That's important because that's the entire premise of this conversation. US Senators are elected at the STATEWIDE level, exactly the level these issues were passed on. In order to enact federal legislation a party must have more US Senators than the other. So Democrats need to win more STATEWIDE elections in rural areas. Same for the house but we have gerrymandering there as well. 

 

7. You haven't argued against the point. That 

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. 

 

Because of this decision to abandon rural areas. Democrats have robbed themselves of the ability to build trust LOCALLY that they need to win Nationally among rural voters. 

 

So at minimum, you can recognize that Demcrats are culpable in that way. 

 

8) Democrats have a vested interest in reaching out to rural voters. They have to find a way to do so or they will die. Rural voters need elected politicians to enact policy that will benefit themselves. Both are true. Discussing how the democrats achieve their part of that equation is what I have been doing. - This can be done without absolving rural people of the role they played in achieving their current economic status.