Why Democrats (not candidates) need to STOP ignoring and/or demonizing rural voters...

[Indygram]

Last edited Sun May 12, 2019, 10:59 AM - Edit history (2)

First and foremost...it is NOT accurate that all people in rural areas are conservative. What IS accurate is that most rural voters do NOT vote. Why don't they vote? Usually because they don't feel like their vote makes a difference AND because no one bothers to pursue their votes.

I looked up the information for Clay County Alabama, total population 13,407.

In Clay County there are 10,079 registered voters, but only 9592 who are active.

Out of those voters, in 2018 only 5445 or 54.09% actually voted.

Democrats got on average 20-24% of those votes.

If Democrats simply showed up they could almost certainly increase the number of votes they get in rural areas of states and by doing that they could win more statewide elections as well as presidential elections because it would win battleground states.

Democrats should NEVER ignore rural voters. That does NOT mean pandering to them. Don't change the message, just show up, listen, talk to them and it WILL change everything.

Editing this for clarity...I am NOT talking about the candidates for office. I am talking about voters/supporters who are constantly bashing and demonizing rural Americans. Most of these people don't even vote. It's foolish to be so blatantly opposed to the candidates reaching out to those voters.

[Ohiogal]

1. That is exactly what Elizabeth Warren is doing!

[Indygram]

6. It's what Beto does, too, and it something I love about him

No one written off!

[Blue_true]

52. I like Senator Warren's energy.

She finishes her Senate work for the week and immediately jumps on a plane to go out campaigning, often visiting out of the way places, then she is back to work on Monday. Our nominee simply has to out campaign Trump and go everywhere, doing 4-5 events per day if needed. That is how we win, that is how Barack Obama and Bill Clinton won. Senator Warren has shown that she is a relentless campaigner.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. So I'm in NJ

Horse County NJ to be exact.

When we say rural - do we only mean bible belt and Southern States?

My district flipped last year after 38 years of a GOP House Rep.

Some of what we used?

Demonizing those people in square states who take too much our money that could go towards expanding public transportation to Hunterdon County.

The county is Have and Have not - but most NJ voters are keenly aware that for every $1 they send to DC - they only get $.62 back.

What I would hate to see is a Democratic Presidential Candidate who plays to Nebraska and Alabama, at the expense of my House seat. Hunterdon County has more in common with Bucks County PA, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio farmers - than they do with deeply religious farmers who vote "morals and God". One in particular (farmer - former GOP) who smirked about soy beans vs feeding people and so . . . They deserve what they did to themselves with Trump.

[beachbum bob]

4. I agree with much of what you say. I have no need to appeal to narrow minded, conservative and

yes, for the most part they are, rural voters. We can and should try to appeal to the working people who constantly vote against their own self-interest but we have to face the fact that 40% of america simply hates what america stands for and accept that NO amount of messaging can ever bring over and we should minimize the time and money trying to do so.

The brainwashing and propaganda has paid off big time for the rightwing in especially rural, lower income, poorly educated areas

[ancianita]

13. If we have to "face" anything, it's that Bernie reached out to them on Fox and had an impact.

Know why? Because he's convincing them, for the Democratic Party, that their "brainwashing and propaganda" isn't working for them.

That's trying. The 50 State Strategy says that we don't care what they've been sold. The 50 State Strategy holds that we can point to how we've contributed to what has worked for them -- all the FDR stuff, all the Farm Bureau help, all the federally funded agricultural extension offices and community support programs they benefit from.

Those are facts we can make them face. And we can sell them on our goal of doing the greatest good for the greatest number through our taxes.

That we govern as country over party, for the good of everyone.

If you really believe that "40% of america simply hates what America stands for and accept that NO amount of messaging can ever bring over and we should minimize the time and money trying to do so," then tell me what the "Democratic" part of our party name really means.

[beachbum bob]

41. you have to be realist, NO democratic message will ever appeal to 100% of the american people, never

has, never will

[Indygram]

8. Representation does not have to be an either/or proposition

A candidate can show up and listen to EVERYONE...hear their concerns, ideas, complaints...and get a full understanding. Only with ALL of the information and input from ALL voters will politicians fully understand how to best find a solution that does not help one at the expense of another.

I love that Beto is doing that.

[Blue_true]

53. I truly believe that Senator Warren will prioritize places like yours.

Purple areas where her showing up makes an enormous difference.

What I think people mean by rural voters are the rural voters in states like Pennsylvania, your part of New Jersey, rural Iowa, rural Wisconsin, rural Michigan, rural North Carolina, rural and small city Florida, rural and small county Ohio. Those are places where showing up reduces the republican margin, Senator Warren seems to be very smart and understand that. She may make a trip to Alabama to support Senator Doug Jones and that will certainly help him, but I expect that she would put resources into areas of purple and pink states and areas that we have tended to not pay much attention to as we tried to run up out margin in cities.

[RobertDevereaux]

3. Yes to the 50 state strategy.

[h2ebits]

12. +1000

Yes, to trying to reach as many people as possible instead of ignoring them.

The Republican Party strategy was to run candidates in all local elections, all municipal elections, all state elections, all US elections--and move people up to higher status as time went by. Their strategy worked for them but not for people.

We (all of us--not just Democrats) created fly-over country and now we need to put a stop to it. The National Popular Vote bill would "encourage" our politicians to visit everywhere.

[NoMoreRepugs]

5. There are votes to be had in every part of the Country

if we have the correct messenger giving the message.

[2naSalit]

7. We rural DEMOCRATS

are here and very much ignored by most of the national candidates.

That needs to change.

Stop blaming "the square states" for not being a large number of people, we are still Americans, many of us do vote and sometimes we get good policies but it's a major fight because we don't get any notice from the "crowded states".

Stop telling ME that I don't matter because I live in a rural state or that I shouldn't have an equal say or less than two Senators representing me because of where I live.

This argument about "rural states", "square states" is just an extension of the zip code bias you see in education and other social concerns.


So when is the last time someone came to Montana and did an actual survey/analysis of the political climate here? And I don't mean a three minute "post card" on NPR..

[Indygram]

9. There are plenty of votes to be had in rural America

Democrats just need to show up and talk and listen.

I bet Beto will go to Montana at some point!

[Demit]

10. That low population states are overrepresented in the Senate is just a plain fact.

Residents of Montana have way more than an equal say in the Senate.

[2naSalit]

14. Like hell we do...

EACH STATE HAS TWO SENATORS REGARDLESS OF POPULATION. If you want representation based on your state's population, you have representatives in the House for that.

EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE 50 STATES HAVE EXACTLY TWO SENATORS O REPRESENT THEM REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN A STATE.

Why is this concept so hard for so many to grasp?

PS: I did not write the Constitution but I agree with it. Anyone who can't agree should consider other countries where their needs can be met.

[BannonsLiver]

36. We are governed by rural America. That is a fact.

The Dakotas have a combined population of a million, maybe less, and they have 4 senators, all fanatical RWNJs. The House is only part of our govt. The issue with the senate is a BIG problem. Your understanding or acceptance is not required for that to be true. Sorry.

And drop the “love it or leave it” schtick. It’s so March 2003. I’ll list the shortfalls of this country all GD day if I want to.

[2naSalit]

58. Every state gets two (2) Senators

it's not about population with the Senate. You'll have to have more than anecdotal rants to convince me otherwise. Have a nice day, remember to vote Democratic.

[BannonsLiver]

67. The senate is the more important body

And if you can’t see how the distribution of our population has made the way things are now in the senate unfair and tilted power toward a group of far right, less populous states, I don’t have time to draw you a picture. It should be pretty obvious by now.

Ta Ta

[Bettie]

57. I live in a small population, mostly white state too and my views have changed

On its face the Senate seems egalitarian, but when you look at population distribution and the number of people represented by the majority, it is problematic.

This is compounded by the fact that the current majority leader (McConnell) is a dishonest nutcase and likely a treasonous one at that.

Then there is the issue of the House.

The cap on the number of representatives causes it to be wildly unequal in terms of representation. California, the most populous state in the nation is likely to lose representatives in the next census, as other states have grown their populations more.

In any case, my state, your state, and others with lower populations have a disproportionate influence as their representatives, even when there is only one, represent a much, much smaller number than anyone in a more populous state. Gerrymandering (high tech now) adds to this unequal representation significantly. The number of representatives needs to be increased.

There's also the point that it is WAY easier to buy a senatorial election in a smaller media market and a smaller state (in terms of population).

Joni Ernst comes to mind as a prime example of this. She could not be elected in a larger state, larger media market, but ad buys are cheap in Iowa and the Koch brothers knew she was a bargain. It is way harder to pump enough money into a major market to move the election in a specific direction.

[BannonsLiver]

31. +10000

I don’t know what the person responding to you is up in arms about but this is a fact. We are governed by rural America. The Dakotas have a combined population of about a million and has 4 senators, all RWNJs. California has 30 million people and has 2.

[ancianita]

16. Do tell us. Did you urge your rural fellows to watch the Democrats who've shown up on Fox?

The last Democratic president who didn't visit your state was LBJ -- yet Montana voted for him for president.

You also have John Tester as your Senator. Can't he represent the Democratic campaign issues to your rural folk?

Who of the Democratic candidates should show up in your state?

The only zip code biases I see Democrats care about are swing states and vote counts.

[2naSalit]

59. I can only guarantee

one vote, mine.

You also have John Tester as your Senator. Can't he represent the Democratic campaign issues to your rural fol

See, this is what kind of thing I'm talking about, if you had paid a little attention you'd know. The reason we still have Senator Tester is because he reaches out to all voters/constituents regardless of party, and he keeps getting elected because he goes about his job and campaigning the way more Democratic candidates should.

You guys can flame me all you want for your lack of understanding*, I will still be here and will never agree to change how Congress is composed.


*Apparently on more than this issue when it comes to rural voters.

[ancianita]

60. I do understand and agree with your position on Congress' composition. I was addressing

the complaint about wanting more candidates' visits. It's fair, but not usually doable, when considering the size of the country, the cost/benefit of campaign travel, electoral college votes, etc.

Besides candidates' visiting and listening to rural voters, what are the other rural voter issues that they and everyone here should understand?

[2naSalit]

62. It's a laundry list but I'll just go with

Public Land issues and how much more it matters to everyone than most imagine. Yes they belong to We the People, but the government manages them and they suck at it in DC due to corporate influence.

The vast majority of Americans see public land as their favorite place to go camping or participating in some favored recreation on weekends and vacations but they have a far more serious effect on the survival of us all and too many fail to see that. And just coming here on vacation does not oblige us to totally accommodate every tourists' desire, though that seems to be the mindset of our visitors who rudely inform us they expect that, and these are the American tourists.

There is no realization about how the public lands, purposely set aside for more reasons than cattle grazing and ATV rides, sustain us by way of natural processes. Sadly, we Americans, as a whole, expect that everything on earth was put there for us to use as we wish with little regard to how these places, yes even the sage deserts, make it possible for us to exist, yet we don't seem able to notice that we can do something about how they are managed. At present, they are managed, for the most part, in such a way that extractive industries have had free reign to chip away at them to the point where we are all endangered, yet nobody really pays attention until they go on vacation. And having some respect for nature is absent in many Americans, thus, much of the problem's origin can be found in how we "use" our favorite places when going out to play.

Saturday evening I went to a dinner party and met a nice gentleman who was very intelligent and seemingly aware of many issues facing the citizenry, but he had no clue about most of the concerns involving public lands and how they are managed for destruction while most regulations and rules to help sustain during and after use are ignored by the industries and a large number of recreationists.

That is one issue where I will fight to the mat, but I'm burned out from educating and protesting and lobbying. Where I live, I am surrounded by public lands, Wilderness, BLM, NF, NP, and state conservation lands, and still it is not enough to protect what we need to sustain us at survival level in the near future. But let's approve some more mining, drilling, timber harvest and cattle chopping it all up, I'm sure we'll learn our error as we take our last, desperate gasps.


Just sayin'.

[ancianita]

63. THANK you. Very much. Public lands in every state are in this shape. My son in NM tells the

same story. Not the tourist despoiling part, but the corporate extractors' part. He lives in Silver City, and is now vice chair in the Grant County Democratic Party.

My belief is that the more we understand the history of who first claimed mineral rights in this country and/or continent, the more solid will be our legal/political course. When following the money, we usually learn that it hardly ever goes to local extractors. The laws and policies that enable extractors to be "first to market" on public lands has been another area the public needs to explore when resisting these invasions and destructions.

It seems to be mystified -- likely because it's at global bank and treaty levels -- and every generation seems to have to learn, on their own, all over again, an important area of our history -- land use. What my son and I read points to global claims made generations ago, which now live on under cover; thus, our confoundedness. As if we "can't handle the truth."

I don't believe that any dominators will give us the tools to end our land domination. Nor the politicians who, knowingly or not, leave them alone or benignly neglect rural folk.

So, imo, we who live on these lands have to go at land base control and despoilment issues as teachers of the public. I really don't trust that our politicians will lead the way on ending misuse of public lands. I'm going to start searching for histories on this.

[2naSalit]

64. Here's a link

to an NGO whose main purpose is protecting public lands, lots of info there... http://www.westernwatersheds.org/

Disclaimer: I have some affiliations with this organization.

[ancianita]

65. Thanks. I'll check it out. I don't endorse the source for my link below, but it does highlight

hidden history of this land's first ownership. It's global. Don't be put off by the "deep state" label on the link. A clock can still look ugly even if it accurately tells the time. A number of books I've read -- and I'm a far left progressive marxist in the best democratic sense -- corroborate these claims.

Our politics is confounded by this old history.

After the Civil War, under the Reconstruction Acts, a new United States corporation, was formed in 1871. This can be confirmed by referring to United States Code, Title 28, Chapter 176 under Federal Debt collection procedures. Section 3002 (15) states that “United States” means:

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Note that this definition does not include any reference to a constitutional republic, country, nation, compact of states, geographic area, or people. The definition only refers to agencies and instrumentalities of the United States corporation.

https://steemit.com/deepstate/@citizenpresscorp/usd14-3-quadrillion-lien-taken-against-all-u-s-land-real-estate-and-people-follow-the-yellow-brick-road?fbclid=iwar1x9avqm4buog5fjofvulkqpfghytkj_k1wfb0qb5l-hhdffb4akmfezvu

American voters need to ask politicians about their knowledge of this. Challenge them about their views on mineral rights and land base ownership laws from before we all were born.

My view is that our representatives and president need to know this history to be better equipped to protect and defend the constitutional rights of those who live on this land base.

[dalton99a]

11. Definitely in statewide and federal elections

There are Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters who will get out and vote

[Quemado]

15. Some counties are lost causes. Case in point: Roberts County, Texas

This county is basically "Trump World".

In recent years, Roberts County has become almost unanimously Republican. In 2008, 92 percent of voters voted for Republican John McCain versus only 7.92% for Democrat Barack Obama making it one of the most Republican counties in the United States. In the 2016 presidential election, Republican Donald Trump received 94.58 percent of the vote, the largest margin in a county for a Republican in the U.S. that election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_County,_Texas

Population: 938 (2017 estimate) per Wikipedia

Population percentage under 18: 25% per Wikipedia

Number of registered voters for the 2016 election: 716 . https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/roberts.shtml

Number of voters in 2016: 554 Per SOS, State of Texas

Percentage of registered voters who voted in 2016: 77.37% Per SOS, State of Texas

[dalton99a]

18. There are 19 or 20 Democrats living there

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roberts-county-year-pro-trump-town-america/story?id=52364233
Roberts County: A year in the most pro-Trump town in America
By meghan keneally, amna nawaz, jessica hopper and jason kurtis
Jan 17, 2018, 4:00 AM ET

[doompatrol39]

19. It's true. We NEVER hear about rural voters in more rural states.

I mean who knew they even existed?

Candidates really should make it out to places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina and really start putting some focus and emphasis on those more rural states.

You hardly ever hear about those folks, and what they really think about things.

[StarfishSaver]

20. If only we could hear what rural voters thought, things would be so much better

I'm sick of seeing reporters flocking to Harlem, Compton, and the Southside of Chicago to do yet more interviews with urban black and brown people about their economic anxiety, how they're being ignored by Washington and the political elite, and why their voting Democratic.

It's time we heard, at long last, from the forgotten white, rural voter in the heartland!

[Indygram]

23. People of color don't ONLY live in urban areas

And it's extremely biased to make assumptions about all rural Americans just because the ones with the loudest mouths are idiots.

Newsflash...there are plenty of black people who live in rural America. Apparently they don't matter to many here.

[doompatrol39]

25. The point is, nobody is neglecting these people...

...our candidates DO flock to these rural areas and our news media is over saturated with think pieces about rural voters, what is important to them, what it will take to reach them, etc. The entirety of our primaries and elections are based on who is most likely to reach them. Millions more people all across the country vote for Democrats, yet we aren't in control and lose our voices because rural voters want to be wooed and have their feelings coddled.

And believe me if I thought that these pleading "Won't someone think of the rural voters?!?!?!?!?" or "What do these voters care about?!?!?" were talking about rural minority voters then I'd be all for it. But that's rarely what is being referenced or who is being appealed to or who we get to see glimpses of eating breakfast in diners like "real Americans".

[Indygram]

32. I wasn't talking about the candidates (I edited my original post)

I was talking about the reaction some are having on this site to the idea of candidates being inclusive of rural voters.

[doompatrol39]

39. "Some people say"

Ah...the old "Some people".

I rarely see anyone saying we shouldn't include rural voters. Just that they shouldn't have an outsized say in our politics, policies or candidates and that they shouldn't be pandered to (which tbh if I were a rural voter I would find more offensive than anything else). And also, that the idea of "rural voters" should not just include the white working class, which is too often what it means.

The candidate with the most support on here's primary selling point according to his supporters is his ability to reach out to rural voters (never mind any actual evidence to back that up beyond some general sense of folksiness.....but o.k.) and not too far behind is someone whose credentials are that he is the mayor in a fairly rural state. So I'n not even sure it holds up to scrutiny that the majority of people even on here are contemptuous of rural voters.

[StarfishSaver]

34. I don't need to be told that black people live in rural areas

But we all know (or should know) that when politicians and the media talk about "rural" voters, they are NOT talking about black people (any more than their references to "inner city residents" mean white people).

And we also know (or should know) that, while black people live in urban areas, in the suburbs and in rural America, we are rarely sought out in any of those places to give our political views, much less provide in-depth insights into why we feel and vote the way we do.

[DesertRat]

21. Which Dems are "ignoring and/or demonizing rural voters"?

[Indygram]

24. Not really the candidates so much as this site

You can cut the anti-rural stereotyping and bias with a knife. For a party that prides itself on being more tolerant there is one hell of a lot of intolerance on full display in some of these posts.

[StarfishSaver]

35. Really?

They're talked about an awful lot to be deemed ignored.

[Indygram]

42. You know what I mean...

Many on here get their knickers all in a twist when anyone suggests so much as candidates stepping their pinky toe into rural America, as if it's impossible to actually appeal to BOTH urban and rural voters at once WITHOUT compromising anything. It's beyond annoying, especially for those of us who come from rural areas and are NOTHING like the stereotypes that seem so popular with some. Stereotyping is ignorant, no matter who does it or what group is targeted.

[Andy823]

49. Do you actually have an example of this?

I live in a rural area, and I may have missed some posts, but I don't see anyone getting their
"Knickers" in a twist about candidates going to rural areas.

What state do you live in?

[Me.]

22. Trump Is In The WH

and they feel their votes don't make a difference?

[Deb]

26. Quick! Name a State without rural voters.

Do any of our candidates live on a dirt road, without paid police protection or fire hydrants... in 2019? I hope this doesn't become a city mouse vs country mouse debate.

[qazplm135]

28. sigh

no, it won't "change everything."

Get out our base, and we win, every goddamn time.

I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand.

[MineralMan]

29. Absolutely. And we, as Democrats, need to stop doing those things, too.

The reality is that rural voters share many of the same issues and concerns people in more urban areas have. They're a little different in form and details, but healthcare, education costs, poverty, trade, labor and other issues are just as important to rural voters.

We need to show those rural voters why our Democratic candidates will do a better job for them in specific ways.

[Indygram]

30. I went back and edited the title to the original post to better represent what I meant

I didn't mean that candidates are not doing this. I was mostly talking about what I'm seeing HERE, on this forum. As someone who was born, raised and have spent a portion of my adulthood in a rural area not only is some of what I've read inaccurate, it's also highly offensive and in some cases downright hateful. Stereotyping rural people is not different or better than stereotyping people of color. It's never OK.

[MineralMan]

33. It's difficult for many people to see beyond their own experience.

I live in an urban area now, but grew up in a rural, agricultural community. The same issues apply everywhere, but are often slightly different in details.

You're right. We all need to look outside of our own little boxes.

[StarfishSaver]

37. I don't have a problem with reaching out to rural voters

I do have a problem treating these voters as more special or desirable than our loyal base, going out of the way to appeal to them while criticizing and dismissing outreach to minority voters as "identity politics," and expecting minority voters not to talk too loud, be too visible or demand too much (cause we might upset the white folks) but to just show up with a last-minute October-November GOTV-drive, while pulling out all the stops, including substantive policy development reshaping of targeted messaging, in an "any means necessary" approach to appeal to white rural voters.

[Indygram]

43. Yesterday Beto O'Rourke was in a very small town in NH, mostly white people in the crowd

He was STILL talking about institutional racism and telling that audience that we all need to confront racism head on and recognize it for what it is and that it exists in every aspect of life...and then he said that we need to do this so we can begin to repair and fix things. He had that lily white crowd CHEERING enthusiastically for what he was saying. And in Texas when running for Senate at a rural town hall a young man who was obviously mad at NFL players kneeling...Beto gave one of the most beautiful and compelling responses about WHY NFL players kneel...and again, rousing applause. You CAN show up for rural voters WITHOUT making a single sacrifice. It's not an either/or situation.

[StarfishSaver]

45. It shouldn't be an either/or situation. But, in reality, it usually is.

And when we get to the policy development, messaging strategy and allocation of resources parts of campaigns, that's where it becomes apparent.

[Bayard]

38. I agree

Both in general, and on DU.

I get sick of all the Kentucky smears on here. There is a fair amount of us who are not ignorant white tRump-loving hicks.

On a state level, I'd love to see more Dems visit here in the southern KY rural areas. I've never heard of ANY coming here. We have 4 Dems running for governor this time, when:
"Bevin closed out 2018 with a 34 percent approval rating—the lowest of any governor who remained in office after the 2018 midterm elections". We can take that office back.

Everybody hates Mitch McConnell. God knows he's been a monster in so many ways. REALLY hope Amy McGrath decides to run for that seat in 2020. She has so many things going for her, and again, Mitch only polls in the low 30's here. We can take that office.

Its mostly blue collar working people here, without higher education, and dim prospects. I'd say that's one reason there's an opioid crisis. They've never even been exposed to Dem ideals, or any inclusiveness. If they watch any news at all, yeah--its Fox. They've never heard anything different. They don't care much about foreign policy, they want to hear about healthcare and child care. When I was phone-banking for a Dem rep here last year, those were the concerns I heard. The rest were either--yeah, yeah, yeah to my spiel, in a hurry to get off the phone, or---I'll never vote for a goddamn Democrat again (even though that's how there were registered).

People here need to hear that there are alternatives, and hope/plans for the future.

[Duppers]

46. Amen to that.

[Maven]

40. Excuse me? Who is "demonizing" them?

What nonsense. If anything, it is city dwellers who are demonized in this country while rural and suburban voters are told that they are the "real Americans".

[StarfishSaver]

44. So true

It is and has been for years very popular to mock and dismiss urban dwellers as out of touch elitists while lionizing rural Americans as salt of the earth touchstones who represent all that is right and good with our country.

When was the last time you saw a movie about a guy from small town America with narrow views and prejudices who moves to NY or Chicago or LA and finds that he was wrong about "urbanites' and finds his true self in the big city?

That's a silly example, but it also helps to make my point. We have bought into a false narrative about "flyover country" and the "coasts" that insist that rural America is the "real" America that has been forgotten while urban areas are filled with the elite and privileged or black and brown criminals, or both and the only way to return to America's "true" self is to adopt the values and viewpoints of the neglected white people in certain pockets in the middle of the country.

[treestar]

48. +1

[treestar]

47. Are they just registered from the old days?

I recall phone banking and getting "I'm not a Democrat any more" though they were still registered.

[TheFarseer]

50. You should hear

You should hear some of the crazy shit they believe because they hear it on Fox and hate radio every day. It would be nice to have a message to counter that so rural folks know what we are really about. Not everyone is a single issue Jesus voter - though I admit many are. Many just hear a straw man argument against Dems constantly and almost never hear a counter argument.

[Downtown Hound]

51. Yeah, what the fuck ever

I'll stop talking shit about them when they stop trying to take away our health care, reproductive rights, letting kids die by the hundreds so they have their precious AR-15's, and stop putting the future of the planet at risk so a few of them can have coal jobs. Until then, I'm done giving them a pass. There's way more young people and others who's vote I would rather win than a bunch of Faux News fed zombies who are too stupid to know that they're not only sacrificing their own future, but ours as well.

This whole reaching across the aisle crap ignores the massive amount of atrocities these voters have committed in the last 30 years. Everything from the Iraq War to the Patriot Act to global climate change to constant mass shootings to the Great Recession is in no small part their fault. They will get no respect or silence from me. The big lie is that we need them to win. We don't.

[Blue_true]

55. We need some of them to win.

My county and the two red surrounding counties is a case in point. The entire area is light red politically. It went for Trump. One of the four county complex is deep blue, it went for Hillary and inact liberal policies within it's borders, it is also the richest county in the complex. My county has many cultural events and the republicans here are mostly unthinking oldline republicans from the Ike era, passed down through generations and Reagan. Republicans outnumber Democrats in my county around 60-40, but Independents are almost as large as Democrats in registration. The county used to be really, really republican. A big name Democrat with a good message can come to this area and pull in a lot of votes that are given up on with our party's big Florida cities campaign strategy. We don't need to win counties like mine, just hold down the republican's margin of victory, if we do that statewide in red counties, we win pretty handily. President Obama won Florida twice, people seem to forget that as they trip over themselves to call the state lost to Democrats.

[Hoyt]

56. Pretty much agree. Although, I'd identify some key rural areas that might have 10%

possibility, and work those a bit.

[Irishxs]

54. I live in Tennessee and I wish candidates

would campaign in all 50 states. They figure it’s not worth time and money, but it tells folks their vote doesn’t matter. They have a point.

[dsc]

61. It terms of policy, and I think to our deteriment politically, we have focused on them

The ACA was a massive transfer of wealth from many of cities to the rural areas. And in return we got nothing or worse than nothing. And you can't claim it was because we relied on those evil insurance companies. In Clay county upwards of 70% of the total population is on medicaid. We gave them free, public insurance and in return they voted for the people who would take it away. I actually as policy dislike Warren's idea to pay off college loan debt but politically it is a winner for us as it rewards our voters and doesn't help the other side. The problem is that rural voters have been able to get the benefits we advocate for (social security, ACA, medicaid, medicare, pell grants, etc) but vote for the other guys. While I know we can't literally cut their benefits simply for voting for Trump we should tailor our policies so that they benefit our voters and penalize other voters to the extent we can do that. Make rural voters pay a price for this behavior. For example if Clinton were President now, I would have advocated that she permit Kentucky to end medicaid expansion as Bevins wants to do.

[Indygram]

66. I guess I just don't understand why some here are SO OPPOSED to candidates talking to rural voters

I am NOT saying to change their message at all or to pander or anything like that. All I'm saying is why the hell do some view them simply showing up as being a betrayal or sorts? It's completely illogical, imo.

[Gothmog]

69. How Ted Cruz held off Beto O'Rourke in Texas

Beto visited every county in Texas and did extensive out reach to rural voters. That out reach made only slight difference https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/texas-election-results-analysis/?utm_term=.40289f03724f

U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D) generated far more buzz and cash than Sen. Ted Cruz (R), but he couldn’t muster quite enough votes to topple the incumbent in the reliably Republican state.

That the charismatic O’Rourke even made it a close race was a testament to his campaign strategy and ability to excite grassroots voters. O’Rourke showed up in every one of the state’s 254 districts during his campaign, drew huge crowds at rallies and raised more than $70 million — more than double Cruz’s total — despite accepting no money from PACs or special interests....

O’Rourke needed huge turnout from groups that do not traditionally flock to the polls, such as young voters and people who live in predominantly Hispanic areas. Some of those are near his home turf of El Paso and around the border cities of Laredo and McAllen.
?v=7
According to results from AP VoteCast, a survey of 3,776 Texas voters, both of those groups voted for O’Rourke by a factor of 2 to 1, but it wasn’t enough to overcome Cruz’s dominance among older white voters in rural areas who tend to vote in high numbers.

[Gothmog]

68. Beto tried reaching out to rural voters in 2018

Link to tweet