General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats being just a big city party for some groups but not others has already failed.
The 3100 county strategy pushed by Keith Ellison is what the Dem party must do. And that means compete EVERYWHERE and have a strong jobs message for everyone everywhere. The Dem party has been GUTTED all over the country since 08 because it decided to be mainly an urban party, went corporate at the national level, and decided to just compete in presidential years.
MEGA FAILURE! MANY registered Dems in small towns and rural areas voted for Trump, not so much because they liked him a lot, but because when your town is dying, when mills and shopping centers have closed, when you feel your beloved town has no future, you want JOBS again and the middle class American dream again. And Trump and Republicans successfully addressed that anxiety with a strong, clear, simple jobs message.
Dems may not win all those areas back, BUT, as BARACK OBAMA said, you have to compete everywhere and get MORE of those votes to be a viable national party that can win.
When Obama came to office in 09 he and he and Dems did plenty of PROGRESSIVE things. In 2010 the "base", which should have been extremely happy and energized, went to sleep, at least in too many cases. And in 2016 if the thought of a Trump disaster and the first woman president couldn't energize the "base," then what would have? Sure, Clinton could have done a better campaign, but it's not as though it was a terrible campaign. Too many in the "base" stayed home. No excuses.
The party needs to compete EVERYWHERE, and it is needs a strong, clear, compelling JOBS JOBS JOBS message which works for EVERYONE EVERYWHERE. The party needs to build NATIONALLY from the school board to the Senate, and it needs to fight for votes EVERYWHERE including RED areas which we may not win but can at least get MORE of because in the big picture that matters bigtime.
GOOD JOBS FOR EVERYONE EVERYWHERE is the number one concern, always, and it plays well in both cities and out in the country. And we haven't had a strong jobs message at all. It has STUNK. People are far less concerned about divisive "civil rights" and "identity politics" issues than they are about having a good job, buying a home, have two vehicles, and taking a vacation every year. That is the middle class American dream that EVERYONE wants regardless of race, color, or creed. The other stuff is secondary to most people.
I'm not saying those issues are not important at all, I am just saying they are not the main priority for most people. What good are more "rights" if you don't have a good job and are struggling economically? Not much.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)working class they failed. If Dems go after the far left they failed.
If Dems go after Blue Dogs they failed.
Pic your flavor
LBM20
(1,580 posts)
Me.
(35,454 posts)“People are far less concerned about divisive "civil rights" and "identity politics" issues”
Do you mean black people who are being killed, women who automatically get paid less or are harassed when seeking health care at Planned Parenthood, those who have had their votes taken away illegally? Those who want the same rights as white men to do and be as they wish?
Why are civil rights divisive?
Why is it one or the other?
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)They are only the majority of the population. The OP knows which Americans truly matter. 
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I live in Ramsey County, Minnesota, and that's where my activism is focused. Whatever county is your home, that is where your political work should be, in my opinion. It is there where you can make things happen. There is no "they." There is only "you."
JHan
(10,173 posts)Thank you.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)This OP is divisive in the worst way.
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)Amen!
betsuni
(25,477 posts)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Wounded Bear
(58,648 posts)
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)(I'm a campaign staffer who's been asked to represent the candidate/campaign at meetings before) I can tell you there's a structural problem with some of these meetings. The committee members skew older (70+) and they spend so much time in the meetings talking about procedures that many people who show up are one and done types (especially younger people). I've been laughed at when I've asked for help with doors, phones, etc. (Not always-- some committees are great for that but that's the exception to the rule).
Another issue that local Democrats face is that not everyone has the budget to go to country club fundraisers all the time. I receive at least 5 emails a week from my local (county) Democratic party (that is active mind you) or state party that are simply invitations for fundraisers that start at $300. I remember suggesting low dollar (under $50) fundraisers as a way to bring in more young people and I was laughed at. I simply do not have the breathing room in my budget to attend one $300 event, let alone the multiple I get emails about.
If the local parties want to get more people involved, they need to give something to the people that makes going to meetings not a chore. Easy asks are getting people to march in a parade, tabling at community events, etc. Going to a $300 fundraiser is not an option for me (unless I was comped) but if someone asks me to man a booth for an hour on a Saturday or march in a parade, I'd be all in.
Lastly the meetings need to open the floor and have a social aspect to it.
Hekate
(90,669 posts)Dem Women, Democratic Service Club, Dem Part of (city) -- and that's not all of them. The city is under 100,000 population and the county is under half a million.
Certain areas have serious money to donate, and in the past I have volunteered at receptions and fundraisers I certainly could not have afforded to sit in at. One was for one of our Senators -- but earlier in the day she was at a $35 per person event held by one of the high-rollers at his estate that was attended by several hundred happy Dem volunteers like me, and from the quality and quantity of the food and drink, I am pretty sure it was barely break-even as a fundraiser and was really a big thanks for all us worker-bees.
It can be done. I wish you well.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)
I've also gotten those high dollar, asinine invitations. The Dem base doesn't have that kind of money to spend.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)fundraisers. I did that by volunteering to work at them. Sometimes, I bussed tables, handed out nametags, or did a dozen other necessary chores. But I went. I went and I mingled, once the chores were done, taking part in all of the activities. I was presentable, well-dressed and had no problem with talking to people I wanted to talk to.
Every fundraising function needs workers, and the work isn't onerous nor does it take all that much time. Once you've done what you volunteered to do, you're at the fundraiser and can participate on an equal footing with everyone else. As I used to say, "It's either time or money. If you don't have one you can always spend the other."
For unwelcoming groups, I simply ignored those who were unwelcoming and talked to those who were open to new participants. Before long, my face was recognized as part of the group, and I never missed a chance to make my case - whatever it was. I also never missed a chance to welcome other new people. Over time, the nature of the group and its participants slowly changed. Unless people step up and insist on being part of an organization, nothing changes.
If the goal is worthwhile, the effort to be involved must also be worthwhile. I have never allowed anyone but myself to set my goals, and I take them with me wherever I go. I didn't let others sway me from what I wanted to say or do. I got in there and insisted on being heard and on being part of the organization. I never saw it fail. It always worked.
Finally, if you are willing to lead and make that known, you'll soon find yourself in a leadership position. All it takes is willingness, eagerness and some people skills. Every organization needs leaders, but few are willing to put in the time and effort. If you are, you can do anything you want to do, as long as you're not rude about it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
samnsara
(17,622 posts)..almost all my neighbors voted for trump...the others didn't vote. I'm in the rural area of Wash State where there are huge ranches and HUGE trump signs (still up) and I voted Dem. Hubby has a good job ( I retired early)....we have 2 homes and 3 cars and 4 dogs. Not rich but when we both retire in a cpl years we will have the same standard of living. We Made GOOD choices in our life, went to college and saved money for a rainy day. So what makes me a DEM and my neighbors GOP..some of whom have really big ranches, more money and a hell of a lot more land? I don't think its the economy when so many are faring very well and still go with GOP. I think its a belief system that is with us from the time we start thinking on our own. These folks who say they were Dem but voted trump..? I call BULLSHIT. Its whats inside you that makes you one or the other..its what makes you believe in equality, empathy for those less fortunate and a deep respect for humans AND Earth. Its how you value life. You don't just change that easily.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)What you said! You stated it beautifully!
"Its whats inside you that makes you one or the other..its what makes you believe in equality, empathy for those less fortunate and a deep respect for humans AND Earth. Its how you value life. You don't just change that easily."
This is a re-post:
Conservative moral values arise from the Strict Father Family.
....
What if they (people) don’t prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. In this conservative view, the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving while the rich deserve their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility, not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you, not society. You are responsible for yourself, not for others.
The Conservative Moral Hierarchy:
• God above Man
• Man above Nature
• The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak)
• The Rich above the Poor
• Employers above Employees
• Adults above Children
• Western culture above other cultures
• America above other countries
• Men above Women
• Whites above Nonwhites
• Christians above non-Christians
• Straights above Gays
Sound familiar?
On the whole, conservative policies flow from the Strict Father worldview and this hierarchy. Trump is an extreme case (he wants to be the ultimate strict father), though very much in line with conservative policies of the Republican party.
Much more...
https://georgelakoff.com/2017/07/01/two-questions-about-trump-and-republicans-that-stump-progressives/
Doesn't this sound EXACTLY like what is preached in some conservative churches? It's not the compassion and empathy the Jesus of the New testament taught.
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist and I think empathy is the bedrock of all "morality."
cloudbase
(5,513 posts)They have to have a solid plan that has a reasonable chance of being implemented.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)MEGA FAILURE! MANY registered Dems in small towns and rural areas voted for Trump, not so much because they liked him a lot, but because when your town is dying, when mills and shopping centers have closed, when you feel your beloved town has no future, you want JOBS again and the middle class American dream again.
It is not just small rural towns that are losing their jobs as stores and malls close EVERYWHERE. Do you know why they are failing? The internet and the likes of Amazon. Brick and Mortar stores are fast becoming a thing of the past because retail stores can not compete with the internet. Trust me on this, I know, I have been in retail for 40 years. So you tell me how any politician is going to create JOBS JOBS JOBS when there are no longer going to be retail jobs...sorta like tRump saying he will bring coal miners jobs back...just a stupid political lie that the masses bought hook line and sinker.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)JOBS and the way we think of them is a 20th century concept that is painfully dying off. It started BEFORE the great recession, but that event crystallized the future when the "economy" recovered, profits recovered, even productivity 'recovered'....though I would argue THAT never really dropped....what never recovered was JOBS.
We are steaming head long into an era of surplus population. Mechanical and computer automation is on track to displace up to 50% of ALL JOBS in the next 35 years. This is going to be as profound a paradigm shift as humanity has seen since the dawn of the Industrial revolution and it is going to collide head long with the ravages of climate change and climate refugees. We have precious little time to raise the alarm on this and start meaningful discussions of just how this is going to impact humanity or it will be too late...I fear we are already inching towards the abyss even today.
When 50% of ALL people are unable to work because there is no work to be done, what then? The answer IMHO is education and research...we must train the species to value KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING above CONSUMPTION and PROFITS. The world is about to undergo another seismic shift...unless we want to follow the path of the 20th century and rerun the wars and conflicts of that century with unimaginably more destructive weaponry, we better start coalescing around a new paradigm and we better include as many people as possible...but that precludes people who do not want to come along....it does not mean we bend the party to include more religious dogma like opposing marriage equality or fundamental rights to control one's own body....it does not mean that we coddle the people who would say the world is merely 6,000 years old as if they are not crazy....it does not mean that we join in the racist chorus of "ALL LIVES MATTER" as a rejoinder to the aggrieved minorities...it does not mean that we give an inch on the RIGHT of citizens to obtain basic health care WITHOUT INSURANCE as the middle man...
Disaster is looming in the near future. The only way we make the coming disaster a survivable event instead of a human catastrophe and extinction level event is by joining together with the rest of the civilized world in an effort to expand and protect human rights for everyone and everywhere. There is no imposition of outdated values and norms or memes that can achieve this...this is NOT a clash of civilizations or east versus west...this is future humanity or extinction. It really IS that dire...
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)who would imagine the government-is-evil people would do something about this. And many actually realized Rump was nothing more than a depraved old orange clown.
Nor did we make them ignore OUR existential message that the power of government is a huge tool we can and need to use to tackle these problems. That previous generations did it before and it can be done again.
Notably, many people who voted for Rump KNEW what we promised for their region. They heard our message--and rejected us. Some because they've swallowed the Kool-Aid that government is bad, but many others among them wanted it but just did not want it from Democrats.
The biggest factor in all this is that almost all conservatives are voting their side of the huge, cleverly crafted, mostly phony partisan divide that's threatening to destroy us. Period. And some, yes, are registered as Democrats. Doesn't matter. They know which sides their people and which side those other people are on.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)That they did Hortensis.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)are the huge numbers who didn't bother to vote for a variety of reasons, but who are mostly free of such an insane degree of partisanship that they'd give up a living wage and affordable college for their children to spite the "other side."
kentuck
(111,089 posts)This includes "Blue Dog" Democrats and conservatives.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)should be an oxymoron.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)
And post-election research, it makes your analysis void.
Your claims about why people voted as they did are directly contradicted by that data. All the data shows that voters who prioritized the economy chose Clinton. To claim otherwise is false, and given the amount of information in the press on this subject, we are at the point where continuing to promote that argument becomes deliberate misinformation.
Yet we continue to see the argument presses regardless. Clearly it has nothing to do with winning. That would require looking at data. When people refuse to consider evidence, it's because they have an agenda, whether it's to deny climate change or promote certain interests.
White men are not most people. They are a minority, getting smaller by the day. As much as you want the party to abandon the majority of the population to cater to the demands of the $100k plus a year crowd--because those are the voters Clinton lost.
When you call civil rights divisive, you are saying you want a party focused on promoting the interests on white men over the majority. You don't get to decide what is the priority for most people. You decide your own. You may view your own class, race, and gender based interests as universal, but they are not. Moreover, I think deep down you know that, or you wouldn't be pronouncing that the Democratic party should abandoned civil rights and "identity politics," concerns about the lives of those who combined are in fact the overwhelming majority.
It's not surprising you ignore the data about the millions of voters of color disenfranchised and instead declare it's focus should be on appealing to white male Republicans, which all data shows voted primarily based on race. Acknowledging disenfranchisement doesn't fit the narrative of the centrality, and hence superiority, of a small handful of white, conservative voters and it doesn't fit the agenda of recentering the party around the interests of white men.
Voters are going to continue to vote in their interests, and there has been extensive discussion among writers of color and in social media about exactly what this argument seeks to do. You can't possibly think repeating it will convince them to abandon concern for their own lives so that those who already make 7-8x what they do can accumulate even more?
Now, we might see the crafting of a less dismissive and less exclusionary economic argument if there was enough respect for those citizens to listen to what they have to say. Instead, a fictional narrative persists that pronounces their rights and concerns as less.
Given the demographic changes in America, there are only two ways to engineer the party away from the poor, people of color and single women--who are the great majority of its electorate--toward yourself and your Trump-voting brethren: continued and ever more aggressive voter disenfranchisement, or genocide. OR you could start to listen, stop assuming that your interests are universal, and think about how to include concerns of others into your argument. Yet the resistance to doing so is seemingly inexhaustible. Why?
Took my breath away
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)"As much as you want the party to abandon the majority of the population to cater to the demands of the $100k plus a year crowd--because those are the voters Clinton lost."
I have no idea how you can cite exit polls and then post something blatantly wrong in the text. Hillary 2016 fared much better than Obama 2012 did among voters making $100k and up. She split that block 47-47 while Obama lost by 10 full points to Romney, 54-44.
Trump fared terribly in most exit poll categories except among people who prioritized change. He dominated that category and it basically decided the election. Even though Obama's approval rating perked up toward election day it did nothing to impact the impression that the country was on the wrong track. That was 62-33 in the exit poll. That category had been identified all year as ominous for Hillary. Among the 62% who said the country was headed in the wrong direction, Trump prevailed 68-26.
Every time white men are downplayed as a source of Trump's victory I have a difficult time taking the post seriously. It is desperation, not truth. White men have been declining as percentage of the electorate but not from 2012 to 2016. They turned out for Trump in sufficient numbers to maintain the white male vote as 34% in 2016 along with 2012. Those white males went for Trump by a net of 31% compared to 27% net for Romney four years earlier.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)And he won voters over $100 k. He did not tie. But since you care so much more about contests among Democrats rather than general elections between Republicans and Democrats I will also point out that she also won lower income voters in the primaries. That coincides with the racial composition of the electorate, since incomes of whites average 8x that of African Americans.
Change is a contentless category. The change they wanted was white rule. That has been proven repeatedly in post-election surveys.
The opposition to Clinton and Democrats more generally is white and self -entitled. It's by people who want to turn the clock back to a time when being white and male was enough to guarantee then a status of racial superiority and an average income advantage even greater than the already staggering disparity.
I did not downplay the role of men in Trump's victory. It is obvious that white men are the most reliable GOP voting demographic. They also are the wealthiest, a point that somehow has escaped you. That is why Trump won upper incomes.
What we are seeing now is an effort to center the Democratic party around those same white men. Controlling one party and three branches of government seemingly isn't enough. Hence the disinformation campaign to try the force the Democrats to abandon concern for anyone but a more affluent white male minority. Not that all white people are affluent or even middle-class, of course. The point is average incomes far in excess of the rest of Americans and voting demographics, which in fact relate to the OP's assertion that civil rights and "identity politics" are too divisive.
Your fixating on Obama vs Clinton is not only irrelevant, itignores context. it is far more difficult for the sitting party to win the presidency after 8 years of holding the Oval Office. The "change" sentiment always favors the opposition party. That such a basic historical fact is systematically and repeatedly ignored is past the point of absurdity.
You mistake my failure to believe in the inherent superiority of white men with downplaying their role in Trump's and every Republican and even right wing victory across the globe. Believe me, many, if not most, of us know we live under a system of rampant inequality because many white men see that inequality as beneficial to themselves. What I oppose is remaking the party to cater to the self-entitlement of those men. I reject the pretense that abandoning concerns for civil rights and the lives of anyone but a white male minority is somehow about "everybody." The consequence would be to make society increasingly unequal to benefit them even more. I especially resent the fact that they seek to camouflage that agenda in the language of leftism and social movements rather than simply admitting their concern is their own self interest.
And the fact is that the two votes per precinct that Clinton lost by in Michigan is dwarfed by the millions denied the right to vote by suppression. That we see that point--and those rights--systematically ignored is disturbing. I can't help wonder if that is also about promoting their own interests, which tend to be incompatible with equal rights and a democratic system that seeks to represent and incorporate the concerns of the majority. That may be why we see a corresponding effort to limit the franchise by replacing Democratic primaries with caucuses, which have the lowest voter participation rates and are largely attended by white property owners.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Lord_at_War
(61 posts)There are two kinds of people- those who really want to annouce their opinion, and those who will go out of their way to step on the pollster's ankle as they pass them by. I've never seen any data saying they are an exact "demographic match" with the overall voting population... And then, it's just a guess.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)Civil rights are divisive? Human. Rights dismissed as "identity politics"? Nope. Fuck that. Not in MY Democratic Party.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)that means) or to only compete in Presidential years.
The FACT is that Hillary had only 70K fewer votes than Obama in 2012, despite the 2013 dismantling of the Voting Rights Act that allowed for the suppression of millions of votes -- and the Russian hacking of the election.
She supported unions, the $15 minimum wage, free public college, Obamacare, contraception and abortion rights, and JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
But she didn't support RACISM or WRECKING THE ENVIRONMENT or LOOSE GUN REGULATIONS, and those positions of hers did cost some votes.
sheshe2
(83,751 posts)Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy and the freedoms of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.
Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.
Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights.[4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic, social, and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights. By this we can say that human rights play a crucial role
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights
Civil rights are divisive?
Tell that to the people that have fought their whole lives, generation after generation for a seat at the table and not at the back of the bus. Tell that to women that are told they have no equal place in society and are better off in the kitchen and birthing babies. Tell it to the women that are having their preventative healthcare away from them because the men...all rich white men that sat at the damn table and said we don't matter. Tell that to LGBT that who they love only matters to those that hate and the rest of us embrace who they are.
Do not tell me civil rights are divisive. You are wrong. Sorry but you are.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)One of the two major parties opposing equal rights and equal opportunity is more than enough.
Clinton had very detailed jobs bs programs, which of course you must know if you bothered to inform yourself about the general election. That is why she won the majority of voters who listed the economy and jobs as their top concern.
what EXACTLY is Trump doing to help those people??? Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK did they think A RICH CON MAN was going to do to help them? DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS.
and NO, CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NOT A FUCKING SIDE ISSUE, UNLESS YOU ARE SOME KIND OF FUCKING REPUKE.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)but the problem will be getting that message out outside the cities. Broadcast news is beyond corrupted by infotainment and will not do anything constructive. They will report on the clownish behavior of right wingers and continue to mute speeches by Democrats.
We haven't been able to motivate the Democratic majority off their couches with "business as usual." In addition, a party that has been unwilling to commit resources to "red" areas has been seen as a bunch of wimps who won't fight for anything.
We are the majority party in this country. It's time we started to act like it and Ellison is right, it has to happen in every county.
LonePirate
(13,419 posts)Some people in rural areas may have job skills for the modern, global economy; but few rural areas have them in sufficient numbers to attract businesses. Then there is the lack of a modern infrastructure to support and connect those businesses with the global economy. Few people seem to realize that, especially in rural areas, or else they would be bending over backwards to meet both of those requirements. Very few rural areas are actually doing that. They seem to think America can return to how it was back in the 1950s. That is never, ever going to happen. Until they wake up and start supporting candidates with sound job and infrastructure plans (Democrats) instead of hollow rhetoric and an no vision (Republicans), there is nothing we can (should?) do for them. We have led them to water since January 20, 2009. They have refused to drink.
Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)Pretty sure my buddy John Daniels is helping out a bit in that...yeah, I know it's Jack, but "when you know him like I do"....oh wait, I guess that's too "Hollywood" east/west coast for your tastes...let's just agree to call him Jasper, his proper name...as any good Tennessean like myself knows and anyone who doesn't, well they're a Yankee carpetbagger that can't be trusted to take out the trash.
Holy Tappdancing Jesus on a Cracker, how do I begin to dismantle your outrageous post????
Let's start in the first paragraph...the "Dems" decided to be an urban party in '08?? Seriously W...T..F, bro?? Your very first sentence is so racially charged I'm ashamed to think you are a Democrat!! "Urban Party"??? WTF...that reeks of sensational racism and lack of understanding of the world. Add in the bit about "going corporate" and I seriously have to wonder if you were alive in 2008!! Who the hell to you think kept America from slipping into another "Great Depression"?? It sure as hell wasnt the GOP!! While I would suggest, many of those responsible for the financial crisis got off way too easily, that doesn't equate to your statement that Dems lined up with the corporatists.
You go on to list a litany of reasons why rural America voted for Trump...which makes me wonder...do you even have any connection whatsoever to REAL rural America?? Because I can assure you it wasn't the, lmao...*cough* pardon me, "strong, clear, jobs message" from Trump that won their support. As an aside, I'm actually begging you, please show any evidence for that outrageous statement and "We're gonna bring jobs back" from a speech doesn't count. Show me precisely where Trump laid out this glorious jobs plan and I'll provide you with a massive "mea culpa" for this post. I'm going to continue because I know you can't find it! Here's the real reason why rural folks, at least in the area I'm from and where I live, supported this shitbag: industry is gone..yes I'll give you that, family farms are crumbling from competition from major corporations, many farm jobs are relegated to seasonal migrant workers because that "working class" you speak of can't seem to accept a job in a fucking tobacco field in the dog days of August cutting tobbaco for slave wages...but it's so much easier to blame those brown skinned folk for "Taking my job", a bit of hatred for blacks..or as you said "urban" folks, mix in a healthy dose of religious indoctrination for the better part of thirty years where every Sunday you're told that the horrors of this country are due to "turning away from God" and the powers behind that are the Godless Democrats...well that's how you win the hearts and minds of rural America.
You scream "Good Jobs"...""Good Jobs for everyone" at the same time suggesting we should, at the least, minimize "civil rights" and "identity politics", and at worst suggesting we should throw them out all together in order to reach out to these mythical unicorn rural voters?? I'm sorry, but fuck that...and I can honestly say, as a child of rural upbringing fuck that shit all the way to hell with the rest of the GOP!!
Let me tell you about my background briefly. My granddaddy's granddad was a Methodist minister in TN who aided runaway slaves across the border to KY; my granddaddy was a sharecropper before he made his money...they were so poor that my aunts and uncles recall seeing chickens through the floorboards of the house and when it snowed they'd shove newspaper in the cracks of the walls to keep snow out, but guess who else were sharecroppers back then in the 20/30's...people of color who would become my grandparents closest friends... my granddad saved up and built a country store and it was vastly different for its time because it wasn't segregated...that got him a visit from the local klan who showed up with torches and granddaddy showed up with a double barreled shotgun, that I own to this day, and he called their sorry asses out by name and they scattered...I was raised by Roosevelt Dem grandparents and parents of the Kennedy era, but I'm lucky...I know many I grew up with weren't so lucky and they're suffering under their own racism and bigotry as a result.
All that to say, as a VERY PROUD Democrat, proud of my rural heritage and so proud of the stands my own family has taken for the better part of a 150 years...you can take your position on "civil rights" and "identity politics" and you can stick it where the sun don't shine. Because I will forever fight for jobs and resources and any benefits for my rural community but I will NEVER...NOT EVER...do so at the sacrifice of standing up for those in my community who are POC or LGBT or women or whatever else you think falls under the category of "identity politics"
Whew....shit that was longer than your post...pass the damn whiskey!!
betsuni
(25,477 posts) Docreed2003
(16,858 posts)
nini
(16,672 posts)I was so pissed I couldn't think straight to lay this out like you did.
JI7
(89,248 posts)
SharonClark
(10,014 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)to say no
Good because this post is so obviously distorted I don't care myself to say much but a big ol yuck 
Oh and the weird cap thing going on
nini
(16,672 posts)Some of us can chew gum and walk at the same time.
The fact middle American right wing Christian zealots don't want to listen is a problem of itself. They're going to have to lose all those safety nets the Dems have fought for the last decades before they open their right wing evangelical eyes to how they've been brainwashed by the republicans.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Can you really say their economic message - tax cuts for the rich, making healthcare unaffordable for about 30 million people - appealed to people who "don't have a good job and are struggling economically"?
