Why are Democrats constantly lectured to do a better job "messaging" to white rural voters

[StarfishSaver]

and no matter how hard Democrats try to talk to them, cater to them, and do for them, when those voters continue to vote Republican, Democrats are blamed for not having the right message

BUT

when black people make simple demands - like, "please treat us like everyone else and stop killing us in the street," - we're told that WE have the wrong message and we need to change it if we want anyone to listen to us?

Can someone explain why white rural voters aren't held responsible for explaining their needs more clearly and Republicans aren't ever lectured about shaping a better message for Black Americans?

[Delmoniko]

1. Good question

Why

[Dem2]

2. Is it clearly "one gets all the attention, the other is told to shut up"

...or is the answer far more complex?

[Bettie]

6. One gets most of the attention

and the other is told to shut up.

Yeah, that covers it.

[Dem2]

16. Is that true?

I've never seen that message portrayed anywhere?

Is it possible to target all voters with a positive message versus dividing voters into groups they may not want to be associated with?

[FakeNoose]

3. Exactly right

Talk about a minority, they're one of the smallest... less than 3% of the population are living in those rural areas. What gives them the right to turn our society and political structure upside down? That is f'd up for sure.

[Bettie]

4. White rural voters are mostly a lost cause

I live among them.

They are, by and large, profoundly and by choice, ignorant and racist. They actively choose a lack of progress, they want everything to remain the same forever. Most of them don't even have friends who they haven't known for their entire lives.

The smart kids leave as soon as they finish school and never look back.

The reachable rural voters are already Democrats.

More support for rural county parties would be welcome, but there are probably higher priorities. We do try, but it is an uphill climb through piles of excrement.

[StarfishSaver]

8. +1000

[True Blue American]

9. All the cities that had high paying jobs

And an educated work force voted for Biden. The rural voted for Trump. Trump won.

I have listened to some of their rants.

[scrabblequeen40]

21. I'm kin to them and I agree

[True Blue American]

5. Did you hear that segment about what Biden could learn

From those old men who actually helped put the Country on a slow, downward path 50,60 years ago? They even included Nixon.

Joe Biden does not need stale old advice from mid 20th century. He needs to take bold, new steps and can go around the dead locked Senate if he has to.

[thucythucy]

7. Not to be too inflammatory

but I think it's ingrained racism.

White rural voters are "real Americans" and if we don't win their votes we've somehow lost touch of "the heartland" and "real Americans" who espouse "real American values."

Even though white rural voters are now a minority, they are considered the norm, the yardstick by which all of the rest of us are measured.

It goes beyond the rural/urban divide. White = the norm, the go-to. Anything else = deviant.

That white people in America are soon to be in the minority themselves has only intensified this desperate urge to see whiteness as the measure of all things.

And so appealing to Black (and Hispanic and Asian) voters is somehow to lose touch with "real America."

Just my take, for what it's worth.

[StarfishSaver]

11. If it's inflammatory, that's only because it's a truth too many people don't want to face

Thank you for explaining this so eloquently.

[True Blue American]

12. You are quite right.

They give you all the other answers but the bigotry comes out sooner or later. Hate rules.

[rso]

10. Rural voters

I think the persuadable white rural voters are with us already. What remains is an intractable and impenetrable group of lost people.

[JI7]

13. Many White People have a hard time acknowledging racism in their community

Many either ignore it or pretend it's s result if something else where if you just fix that something else the racism would go away.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Indeed

And not only do they ignore it, they attack anyone who points it out.

[unblock]

15. The "better messaging" we need for the real racists isn't more understanding

We the only thing that will get through to most of these people is negative. Donnie is a loser and if they side with him then they're losers too. That's the kind of messaging we need.

Some people will only respond to gutter politics.

[greenjar_01]

17. For real

[Kaleva]

18. Especially when far more people in urban counties voted for Trump then in rural ones

[Turin_C3PO]

20. Raw numbers maybe.

Per capita support? Not even close. A far larger percentage of rural voters vote Republican than urban voters. By far.

[Kaleva]

24. Raw numbers are what matters in elections

W/O the raw numbers of votes Trump got in urban counties, he wouldn't have a chance in battleground states.

[marmar]

19. Yep, less than 20 percent of the population and fading fast.....

..... I'm not saying that it's not important to promote universal messaging that appeals to everyone, but why would Democrats focus on this wilting demographic that's not going to vote for them at the 90% and 60+% clip that Black, Latinx, Asian and young educated voters do? It would be a tremendous waste of resources.

[procon]

22. Because Republicans are too afraid of their voters

to speak to them directly. Democrats, as futile as it might seem, have a long tradition of trying to negotiate solutions. It's certainly a hard road to travel with the path more often than not being two steps backward to one step forward.

Slow as it might seem, progress has moved inexorably forward. Not too long ago politics was a center right game, now, not so much as in the bygone days of my early middles.

Look what happened to Democrats after we stood up for the civil rights act and lost the South. Was that bravery or foolhardiness? We cut our own throat to save the country from raging racism and we paid the price at the ballot box ever since. Yet we still persist with an eye toward a better America than the scary version that Republicans have envisioned.

[scrabblequeen40]

23. This a self-correcting problem - a dying demographic

Look whether or not the Democratic party does anything, rural voters will continue to vote against their interests. The deterioration of rural communities continues or accelerates until they all die off. Young people will move to cities to find jobs. This happens naturally.

Eventually, no one who needs a job will be living in rural communities. They'll be moving to cities where they'll be exposed to black people, muslims and gays and learn that they are people too and maybe stop hating them -- in other words, they'll become democrats.

To rural voters, I say, "please proceed."

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. If this were true, there would be no racism in cities.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

26. It's two sides of the same coin. We can't tell white rural voters they're racist, because that will

hurt their feelings, and Black people saying racism is killing them -- well, that hurts people's feelings!

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Stepping heedlessly into a minefield here...

Your second question is easiest to respond to. There is absolutely nothing, nada, zilch wrong with black people making the ridiculously fair and essential demand "please treat us like everyone else and stop killing us in the street," Anyone who says that is poor messaging probably should be examined by a professional to see if they are a clinical sociopath, not to mention a blatant racist. I think the more nuanced criticism is over the use of a phrase like "Defund the Police" which attempts to proscribe a means toward an end (ending police violence toward Blacks) rather than staying focused on the violence itself - "Black Lives Matter". I have no sympathy for those who feel offended by the slogan "Black Lives Matter" because they assert "All Lives Matter" instead. That of course willfully misses the point that it is only the value of Black - and other "minority" lives - that systematically get devalued. "Defund the Police" points toward essential reforms, but the actual phrase is subject to misinterpretation, often intentional.

Your third question (two part) is not quite as straightforward, but fair. I think it is assumed by many that the role of a good leader in a democracy is to be tuned in to the needs of those who they represent. If a need is legitimate those who experience it "should not" be faulted for failing to articulate it in an ideal manner before it is recognized and taken seriously. Our leaders should be perceptive enough to pick up on real needs even if they are not being perfectly framed by those experiencing real need, otherwise we need better leaders. All of this of course assumes that a need is legitimate in the first place. If the "need" instead is bogus, such as "needing to feel superior" to some other group of people it is clearly not deserving of positive attention.

The second part of your third question feels more entangled to me. For one thing, I think the predominant belief within the Republican Party today is that there is a zero sum game at work when it comes to Pace in America. They seem to believe that if they want to hit on the right message for White voters, then they can't simultaneously broadcast a message that honestly addresses the needs 0f Black voters. They have gone all in on white identity messaging. Some do point out that Republicans do a poor job at messaging to Blacks, but by and large Republicans don't care. In the era of Trump especially, they have made their calculations and the messages they send are intentional and they are prepared to accept the consequences of them, because they believe they can win with those consequences.

Which brings me to your first question: "Why are Democrats constantly lectured to do a better job "messaging" to white rural voters?" I think there are two buckets of answers to this, one reasonable, and one not. In the latter bucket falls everything tinged with (or outright painted by) racism. Many Whites default to a mindset that identifies more closely with others of "their own race." Some White Democrats aren't comfortable with the prospect of becoming a minority group within their own Party. Thinking along racial lines, they see it as unacceptable that Democrats don't win the backing of a majority of White voters, and they are willing to potentially undercut - or even possibly "sell out" - support for Democrats among minorities in order to change that. That stance is morally unacceptable and must be made politically unacceptable also.

What I call the "reasonable" basis for calls for Democrats to do a better job at "messaging" to white rural voters bottom line comes down to the severe consequences of losing national elections rather than winning them, especially in light of the specific articles of the U.S. Constitution that rewards territory over population. Meaning Idaho getting as many U.S. Senators as California, and our President being elected by a majority of the Electoral College rather than by a majority of the popular vote. By and large it can be reasonably argued, based on actual results, that Democrats have been relatively successful with their messaging to minority voters, and to Black voters especially. And yet we dance on the edge of a knife when it comes to winning Presidential elections, and to controlling a majority of votes in the House of Representatives but even more so in the U.S. Senate.

There is some cold hard math at work here. Democratic messaging seems by and large effective at securing victory within urban areas, and increasingly within suburban ones as well, but even so we usually lose Senate races in States like Missouri, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and Tennessee. Some seem to believe that for Democrats to reliably win control over our national government in particular, that we need to increase our winning margins among voting groups that tend to vote Democratic. Others feel that we need to do a better job at winning back some voting groups who had voted Democratic in the past, such as poorer white workers, or make greater in roads into groups who would actually benefit more from Democratic policies, such as small farmers.

I do not believe this has to be a zero sum game. I think we can pursue both goals simultaneously; increase minority turn out for Democratic candidates AND narrow the advantage that Republicans currently have with rural white voters. Currently I don't think it's possible for Democrats to appeal to a majority of white rural voters without adopting corrosive racial undertones, but we don't need a majority of white rural voters in order to win nationally. We just need to shrink the share of those voters that Republicans currently count on winning. AND we need to aggressively combat voter suppression that targets minority communities and youth. We need to do all of this and it can be done simultaneously because the price for failing to do so is losing elections. And the price for losing elections is Republican rule, and the price for that, for many, is literally death.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Wow

Thank you for taking the time to think this through and write such a thoughtful and eloquent response.

I understand what you are saying and agree with most of it. I particularly like how you boiled the questions and answers down to the essence to get to a point that I think we can agree on.

Currently I don't think it's possible for Democrats to appeal to a majority of white rural voters without adopting corrosive racial undertones, but we don't need a majority of white rural voters in order to win nationally. We just need to shrink the share of those voters that Republicans currently count on winning. AND we need to aggressively combat voter suppression that targets minority communities and youth. We need to do all of this and it can be done simultaneously because the price for failing to do so is losing elections. And the price for losing elections is Republican rule, and the price for that, for many, is literally death.

My concern, however, is that when we talk about doing two things simultaneously, when one of those things involves reaching out to black folk and the other involves reaching out to whites, in the course of the process, the black side of the equation ALWAYS become subordinate to the white side. It just happens every time. I think that's what we're dealing with now.

People will say, "Of COURSE we need to reach out to black voters but we also need to reach out to rural white voters - it's not an either/or proposition." But then as we move along, we start hearing about how the outreach to black voters is scaring off white voters, so we need to tone it down, change the language to be less offensive, not sound like we're playing "identity politics," stop making white people feel like they're being racist, etc. On the other hand, there is never any concern about how the messaging and outreach to white voters might be heard and interpreted by black people and that it may be offensive to us. It happens every time.

Also underplayed is the reality that white rural voters are unreliable, fickle and disloyal. People love to point to the fact that Obama won a lot of white rural voters in 2008 and 2016, and treat the fact that they voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 as the Democrats' fault, failing to even consider that it makes no logical sense for any sane person to vote for Obama and then turn to Trump - unless racist backlash is involved. I don't trust voters we have to beg to come into our fold every election. Yes, parties must campaign for and earn every vote, but come on. That's ridiculous.

I don't have a solution other than to just say, "Look, the sliver of white rural white voters we can get pales (no pun intended) in comparison to the number of votes we can get if we focus on expanding and strengthening the base of people we don't have to convince to vote Democratic but whom we need to assure their votes count and will be counted, so let's make the latter a priority. And if the white folks decide they want to come along, the more the merrier."

I'm just tired of black voters always being told to sit in the back of the bus and not make too much noise because we need to make room for white people who don't want to ride the bus precisely because there are too many of us on it.

I really appreciate your thoughts on this!

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. You are more than welcome, I appreciate your asking the questions

Our areas of total agreement here are expansive. I in particular really appreciate your pointed framing of the problems that emerge once we dive deeper than a cosmetic surface agreement:

"People will say, "Of COURSE we need to reach out to black voters but we also need to reach out to rural white voters - it's not an either/or proposition." But then as we move along, we start hearing about how the outreach to black voters is scaring off white voters, so we need to tone it down, change the language to be less offensive, not sound like we're playing "identity politics," stop making white people feel like they're being racist, etc. On the other hand, there is never any concern about how the messaging and outreach to white voters might be heard and interpreted by black people and that it may be offensive to us. It happens every time."

AND

"I'm just tired of black voters always being told to sit in the back of the bus and not make too much noise because we need to make room for white people who don't want to ride the bus precisely because there are too many of us on it."

Other things we agree on is that far too many White voters are, as you say, "unreliable, fickle and disloyal." One thing that I do feel clear on is the unambiguous need for our Party to ALWAYS lean hard into the morally correct position. We can not repudiate what is right for the sake of courting votes. So if that means White voters getting potentially scared away by the truth being actually spoken, so be it. It isn't easy, but I do think it is possible to reach some rural white voters with a message framed to break through to them that need not be in any way offensive to Black voters.

Many decades ago I was deeply inspired reading about the work of some late 19th century and early 20th century Union organizers who helped forge strong solidarity among workers of different racial and ethnic groups, who often harbored deep prejudices against each other prior to joining forces for common economic goals. It doesn't work with everyone, but it can work with some, and that can spell the difference between winning and losing.

I think my bottom line is that no appeal can be made to any constituency, in this case rural White voters, that in any way obscures or deflects from what must always be an iron clad commitment to the fundamental human and civil rights and dignity of all racial groups and minorities in our nation. That is the guiding golden rule. If that rule is not compromised though, targeted outreach can still make sense, even to rural whites on non racial grounds. Again, our Constitution locks in too much power granted relatively rural white States, to not factor that into the equation for Democrats holding power at the national level. A Senate Seat from Maine or Kansas carries the same political power as one from Georgia or Michigan.

[intheflow]

29. Seriously, why aren't they courting cities?

It's the urban areas that are voting Democrats in, for the most part. Why aren't they changing their messaging to reach us urbanites?

Oh, right. In their heads, urban = Black and Latino and rich folks with degrees from colleges.

[mtnsnake]

32. The answer is right in this thread

Too many people assume that all rural people are racists just because the majority of them are white and because most of them consistently vote Republican. That's where I think we have gone wrong. Some of them are indeed racists, but I've lived in rural Republican areas for enough years to know that, percentage wise, there are just as many white racists in urban areas as there are white racists in rural areas. Again, I'm talking percentage wise.

Anyway, most rural voters vote Republican because the only message that Republicans have for them is that Democrats are trying to tell rural people how they should live. Republicans have jammed that single perception down their throats successfully, and Democrats have not done enough to convince them otherwise. We just haven't done enough to explain how our message is going to make their lives better.

[StarfishSaver]

33. I don't assume that all white rural voters are racists

But I am certain that all white rural voters who still support Donald Trump, despite the fact that his presidency has offered them no economic benefits, are either racist or perfectly comfortable aligning themselves with racists to try to ensure a white supremacist is the leader of the free world with full power to impose his racist views and policies on the rest of us - statuses that are virtually indistinguishable.

And I'm sick of them whining about how Democrats and city dwellers keep picking on them when they are the most coddled and deferred to demographic in the country.

And, yes, there are plenty of white racists in urban areas. But they don't drive the politics and the conversation and no one treats them as if their shish don't stink.

[mtnsnake]

35. I know you don't assume that

And you certainly didn't imply that in your post. You didn't mention racism or racist once in your original post. But like I said, I believe the answer is right in this thread. Check out how many replies have the word racist or racism in them. Too many people are assuming it's all about racism when I don't think that's it at all, at least not for the majority of those voters in the sticks. I think your question is a good one that gets people thinking.

[StarfishSaver]

37. It may not "all" be about racism, but racism plays a significant part in it

Including certain elements of white supremacy that assumes white rural voters are somehow more valuable and worthy of concern and outreach than black voters (whether urban, suburban or rural).

[mathematic]

34. Yeah, why do white urban and suburban people lecture dems to do that?

A real headscratcher.

(Though actually I don't think it's anything as specific as racism. I think it's a desire for populist and nativist policies in general that these urban and suburban whites support and use "appealing to rural whites" as way to duck responsibility for these positions. For example, with international cooperation agreements on trade and defense it's easy to dress this up as the concerns of "the common man" and then not have to answer for the spread of anti-liberal governments and destructive tariffs worldwide.)

[StarfishSaver]

36. If that's what it is, why aren't black and brown people going along with this?

Could it be that race DOES have something - a lot - to do with the fact that these particular white people adamantly support a racist and the party that enables him but does little or nothing to address the concerns they claim to have?

[mathematic]

40. Black and brown people don't get to hide behind white rurals when holding these positions

There are plenty of black and brown people that are populists and nativists. They just have to own it outright or dress it up with other ideas like class solidarity. Even then, if you mean "hispanic" when you say "brown", you do occasionally get appeals to the general rural vote as opposed to specifically white rurals. Nobody makes an appeal to the black rural vote. I'm not sure if that's because they're basically entirely concentrated in the south or if it's because their politics aren't particularly isolationist. (An interesting side note, "What are we doing to appeal to black rural voters?" seems like it would be very relevant in GA right now and I don't think I've heard that anywhere.)

It does seem like you're kind of moving the goalposts here. In your OP you ask why dems are constantly told to appeal to white rurals and in this post you're conflating that with actual support for republicans. I think we may be talking about different groups of people (which is why I say "kind of" ). I think you're talking about republicans that say dems should try to appeal to rural whites, which generally means dems should capitulate entirely to the republican agenda. I'm talking about dems and independents that say it, which means that dems should jettison liberal values of international cooperation and embrace conservative values of isolationism and nativism.

To summarize, I think dems are often told to appeal to white rurals for many reasons. 1) White people are saying this (as I sarcastically noted before, "a real headscratcher" ). We seem to agree on that one. 2) It's a convenient and morally palatable way to support populist and nativist ideas by appealing to the well being of some group you're not a member of. ("I want to end immigration to help the working man, not because I hate immigrants and their different way of life!" ).

[Caliman73]

38. Simple answer? White Supremacy

The needs and desires of White people are typically placed above the needs of other groups, especially Black people. Black people have historically been told to "wait" and not to make people feel "afraid" or "uncomfortable".

[DonCoquixote]

39. OK, since this is the week of "Hillbilly Elegy"

there are many who sing the blue about those poor rural whites. Hillbilly elegy was hyped as they key to those "rural whites." Michael Moore keeps on saying we have neglected the working class, by which he often points to whites.

The fact is, because this whole bleeping system was meant to give rural people in edge in the electoral college, the rurals know that their prejudice is hardwired into the system.

Now, to be fair to Moore there is a lot that the Democrats, and I mostly mean the centrists, did to cause pain. Yes, Nafta was a lousy deal. Yes, we did need to tell Silicon Valley that if they keep acting like mad aristocrats, they can get slapped down to size. However, the problem is that the rural whites cling to that old idea that the poorest among them is better than any Black or brown person. They also feel more entitled to the fruits of America, because we are less Americans then them, never mind that black and brown lineages were her in America long before George Washington was.

[Withywindle]

42. JD Vance is a right wing venture-capitalist sellout

I have no idea why so many people who usually know better give that book the time of day. Making him the Redneck Whisperer set us back years.

[UTUSN]

41. Even worse that a big part of the lecturing comes from supposedly fellow Dems.

For these latter, the most charitable theory is that Dems/Libs look inward, self-critical, for root causes while wingnuts look outward for enemies to blame.

[betsuni]

43. I'm tired of hearing about the Democratic messaging thing.

Nobody's in the mood for populist slogans anyway. Those white rural voters never get mad at the right people.