General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Democrats: Give rural voters a reason to trust and support the party [View all]Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)That's the best way I can put it. I've known dozens of displaced southern rural white males who moved to Las Vegas to gamble because there was not much going on in their home town. They are all conservative and scared of everything. Fear is the overwhelming trait whenever I speak to them at length. This goes back to 1984. They are scared of blacks, scared of their guns being taken away, scared of Democrats raising taxes that they don't pay, and scared of government even though they couldn't tell you why.
Since Republicans own all the fear categories they think of Democrats as people to hate and distrust. I can't count how many times those guys reacted in disbelief when they found out I was a Democrat. It was like they had never met one before. When we started to talk politics they would say taxes and government and assume that would win any argument, that no other words were ever necessary.
Once in a while we'd talk at length and they'd concede there was an occasional Democrat they didn't despise. John F. Kennedy was light years atop that category. Somehow all of them knew he had lowered taxes. I never understood if they got that from school or family members or media, or elsewhere. They all knew it even if most of them were too young to have followed Kennedy's presidency. Consequently many of those southern rural guys told me, "Kennedy was the last good Democrat," or words to that effect.
They didn't fully hate Bill Clinton. I have to say that. They assumed Bush would win but the animosity toward Clinton was not close to the level I heard in prior or subsequent cycles.
Hillary Clinton was exactly the opposite. I always thought Hillary was likely to lose a close election in 2016, solely due to the overpowering hatred toward her from those rural males I knew from Las Vegas. Guys I hadn't heard from in years were calling or emailing me, mostly to turn the conversation to politics so they could rant against Hillary. Somehow she exploded the fear like no one else. Only when Republicans nominated Trump did I think Hillary might narrowly escape.
Those guys are so simplistic I don't think getting out among them will mean a damn thing. Republicans are great at parading some new fear term. Now it's elitism. So that will have a long shelf life.
I lived in las Vegas for 25 years. Countless statewide races have been lost in that state via some genius politician thinking he/she had to get out into the rural cow counties as opposed to simply prioritizing Clark County, where the votes are. Dina Titus versus Jim Gibbons would be a highlight example. The strategy described in the OP may be acceptable for small rural races only.
Those rurals will continue to be scared of females in high places. Roy Moore would have defeated any female. I hope we don't lose sight of that basic reality. You could have attached every Doug Jones speech and accomplishment to a female of identical caliber and no way she wins that race.
IMO our best option is to artificially steal a few vital percent here and there by nominating white males who look the part and speak plenty of basic language and patriotic stuff. It may not be fully satisfying but we won't lose any frustrated voters on our side, the ones who might prefer a strong female, but you will often swipe a crucial percent or two from the other side.
Jones won but I hope we don't ignore two aspects:
* He won very narrowly. So many of these races are exceptionally tight
* We won't win our share of the tight races if our split of the white vote remains where it is, let alone if it continues to slide