Perception of the Democratic Party

[MuseRider]

What are you hearing from your neighbors? What do they like or dislike? What did we used to do as a party that had their votes?

I fear we have a real problem the farther we get from major cities with communities who have no news other than that provided by corporate newspapers that are published by groups from other states or the RW radio that they most likely listen to in their tractors, there is no other radio available to me and I am close enough to pull in Kansas City. TV we know is not helpful. I admit I really do not know the answer to anything but living out here I see that the truth is very clouded and the indoctrination deep and it is beyond me what to do. We need to start to compile reasons why this has happened.

Indoctrination
No support for different attitudes

[helnwhls]

1. unfocused, weak and out of touch

oh elitist as well

[MuseRider]

4. I think those

are very well supported by all the news outlets that the rural people are getting. As for the elitist moniker? I think that is well deserved by the way these people have been ignored and treated by our party. However that is far better than they are being treated by the Republicans and I can't for the life of me understand why they would support this kind of treatment.

[KT2000]

2. Horwitz owns our paper

they buy rural area newspapers. They are awful for their partisanship - repub.
We cannot get fair coverage of environmental health issues at all - the good guys are the law breaking polluters and Wal-mart and corrupt city council.

[MuseRider]

6. AND

Ann Coulter in every issue. Yes, it is just like that. It is not a surprise that the Democrats can't make any headway, we need to change this.

[whistle]

3. Nothing, it's almost like being shunned the silence is deafening....

...I've been notified by about half of my acquaintances on my email list (non-business, chat-friends) to remove their names from my distribution list because of the pro-Kerry/Edwards messages I was ending. Many republican professionals that I know (lawyers, doctors, accountants, business owners, etc.) who I had regarded as intelligent open minded people have also stopped communicating. I don't know if that's because they just want to give this thing a rest or if they are actually realigning connections and don't care to include a committed liberal in their network. Only time will tell. If I disappear, check the inmate rolls at Guantanamo.

[MuseRider]

8. We will

probably be your roommates!

[havocmom]

5. For over 20 years, we have let the RW define us.

The RW has maligned us and lied about us on hate radio/TV for decades. We have to address that like Clinton did: when they attack, come back swinging and do not stop til they are down.

Then we need to listen to what the heartland is saying. We need to have empathy for lifestyles which are different from the urban frame of reference many DEMS have. We pride ourselves on being inclusive, but I have to tell you guys, some of the shit I hear around here about "Red States" really pisses me off, and I am on your side! The party needs to broaden its perspective and understanding so it can address more rural populations and really get the messages across that we are on the side of the American people.

We need to show that we are the party with real values. We start by not losing our audience with the gun control issue. They hit the mute button every time that comes up.

We need voices out there to show Rush and the cable TV boys to be the liars they are. We CANNOT continue to let the RW pundits bad mouth us and our candidates without challenge!

We need to work on the Southwest and the Mountain West. We can take those states with a little effort, some decent communication and the application of some empathy. Start with tossing out the bigotry that all red state populations are drooling products of marriages between close relatives. That sort of shit is offensive and will not make us any friends. I'll come up with more when I am not so tired. Or I could look up some of my old posts on the subject.

[MuseRider]

7. This is what

we are hoping to do with this group. Please keep posting with us as we figure it all out. Rural issues and Urban issues are really very similar but they take different forms and NO ONE has ever gone out to explain these things, at least not in the recent past. I firmly believe that my state is not a Republican state, it simply votes that way! I know that sounds silly but this is Bleeding Kansas and half of the Bush** supporters I talk to spout Democratic issues and do not know that is where the issues come from. They only know that Democrats want their guns or to provide welfare to the city folks. They never stop to think or are never told that their particular type of welfare in the country will not work in the city and everyone needs some kind of help from time to time. We need to figure this out and quickly do something about it.

[havocmom]

9. To fight the welfare fairy tale we need to get the numbers out there

showing how much each area sends in to the federal coffers and how much each area gets back. The Chicago Welfare Queen in her Cadillac is a myth.

Ranchers in my county all pay themselves just under the limit for personal income which would require them to pay income taxes. All their living expenses are paid for by the Corporation of their ranch, so they live pretty well while claiming just $10,000 per year in salary. There are probably plenty of working moms on assistance in Chicago who would love a new truck every year and all expenses paid...

The 'welfare queens' are mostly really rural family farmers/ranchers. While I am all for helping them keep the farm in the family, I do think we need to educate them a lot better about where the money comes from and where it goes. The RW pundits have been lying for decades on this one.

When Newt was in Congress, his district came in first for federal $$ flowing in. All the while, he howled that we were 'Tax & spend liberals, taking YOUR money away from you!'.

Am I making any sense? I really am very tired. Will hunt up some of my more coherent posts on the rural/urban dichotomy in the next day or two and re-offer them up in this forum. Being a city raised kid who always wanted to live rural, and now almost doing so, I have a broad appreciation of both perspectives. And I have heard a lot of belly-aching from both populations ;)

Talk to ya all tomorrow!

[whistle]

10. The Chicago Welfare Queen myth was started by none other than...

...Ronald Reagan, the commie witch hunter who decided to play on people's racist prejudices. What we are fighting is ignorance and I'm afraid that the critical mass could be swinging back with huge amounts being spent on military welfare of big corporations while social programs like public education , social security, health-care insurance for everyone and jobs will be eaten up by the war profit mongers. Private armies will be the entrepreneurial opportunity of the 21st century.

[MuseRider]

11. Good!

Do come back with all of that. I know nothing of all of that but I do know that it goes on. I think, like so many other people, that there are large amounts of people who abuse the system. I was thinking in different terms. Of the fact that if you are in trouble in a rural community the community comes and helps you out. It is just not as possible or as likely in an Urban setting. NOT that urban people do not do that, it is just different. This is one area that really needs to be figured out and I know nothing about it. Thanks. It ain't all purty out here is it?

[murielm99]

12. I have posted this on DU before, but I want to say it again.

What I hear most farmers complain about is taxes. This may be a state issue, but farmers complain that they pay more than their fair share of taxes.

They would like to see a higher income tax and lower property taxes, so that the burden is shared more equally. If you tell a farmer that his farm is a small business, or the same as a small business, he will tell you that it is not, that his situation is unique.

I think we need politicians at the state and federal level who will address the tax issues of farmers.

And politicians have to stop talking down to farmers. All the farmers I know are educated. The ones around here have graduated from prestigious ag programs at the University of Illinois and Iowa State. Their wives are professionals, too. They are teachers, nurses, and social workers.

I don't think farmers are necessarily conservative in the way that fundies are. They regard themselves as conservative, but we need to frame what really they are in a different way. They all attend church, and support their churches financially. They attend mostly mainstream, somewhat liberal denominations. If the repukes can work through the churches, why can't we?

A look at the churches they attend in my area shows that they belong to Church of the Brethren, a peace church, and a church that says you should live a life of simplicity and service. Or, United Methodist churches, that are liberal and pro-choice. How can we capitalize on that?

Taxes, respect, and a re-framing of the things farmers value. How can we work with this?

[havocmom]

13. Excellent points, all!

We need to educate both the urban populations and those who grow the food. I have noticed that a lot of Americans bitch about farmers & ranchers over a dinner table ladened with cheap food. What? Food isn't cheap you say? Well, look at what the farmers/ranchers got for their product and you will see it actually is cheap food. There are a lot of middle man operations which take the lion's share of what you pay at the store.

Urban people just don't have any way to fully appreciate what it costs to make dinner in America. Easy to denigrate a group whose problems you have no knowledge of. We need to address that part of educating America.

Rural people also could use a day or twelve of walking in the other guy's shoes. They need to understand what it is to have to have every single thing you need come out of a pay check instead of having the Family Farm Inc check-book to take care of what most Americans call ordinary living expenses. I know many, many people who have their accounts set up so that everything they purchase at the grocery store is actually billed to the ranch. Wow, wish we could all do that.

RESPECT Yeah, that's right, all in caps and I'll say it again: RESPECT! Most people raising the nation's food are, indeed, educated. Spouses too, educated and working professionals cuz living off what the land can provide is a risky business and it is almost always necessary to have a fall-back income. Many work to have medical insurance for their families and a way to stay in town while kids are in school. Most of these folks are not stupid. Many are ignorant, but it is an ignorance born of lack of experience with and understanding of other life realities in America. There is no shame in that and it is a condition shared by many of us who grew up not living close to the land. It is easy to be ignorant of what is invisible to you due to the circumstances of life.

When some DEMS toss all red-staters in one category, it is offensive. It is as offensive as the stereotyping of any ethnic group and I expect more from my DEM brothers and sisters. Yeah, there are some willfully ignorant people around, they are everywhere in this world, but we will not make friends, nor influence people by showing our own brand of bigotry.

RESPECT and learn. Listen and empathize.

One more concern I have: How many Blue State DEMS even read this forum? Are we preaching to our own little choir here or is this the new American ghetto? I really believe we need more time together, not more topic specific forums which might just marginalize groups who could be brought together.

The rural poor and the urban poor really do have much in common. The rural middle class and the urban middle class could find they share a lot of common values, once they bridge the differences of their daily experiences.

We can take the Southwest and the Mountain West if we just make the effort to LISTEN, RESPECT, and DEFINE OURSELVES (rather than letting Rush and Paul Harvey define us to the red states).

[democratreformed]

16. Thanks for presenting the tax issue.

I had never thought of it that way. But, I'll also have to admit that I haven't ever heard the farmers that I know complain about it either.

[cattleman22]

14. Talk about alienating more rural voters

""Ranchers in my county all pay themselves just under the limit for personal income which would require them to pay income taxes. All their living expenses are paid for by the Corporation of their ranch, so they live pretty well while claiming just $10,000 per year in salary. There are probably plenty of working moms on assistance in Chicago who would love a new truck every year and all expenses paid...""


My parents have a livestock farm and my in-laws have a livestock farm. Your analysis is not what I have observed. There is no legal way that all living expenses can be deducted as farm expenses.

My parents both have outside jobs in order to keep the farm going. My mother in law has an outside job while my father in law works full time on the farm. I know that all 4 would love to have a new truck every year, but that just does not happen.

[democratreformed]

18. When I first started college (many years ago), I met a very sweet lady,

who, during her introduction said "My name is .... and I am here learning how to teach so I can support my husband's farming HABIT". I will never forget that.

[RiDuvessa]

31. Don't forget the Midwest

Remember, the Democrats are losing ground in the Midwest too.

Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin have all traditionally been blue states, and look what happened this election. Even Illinois is turning purple, although I don't think the Republicans will ever turn Chicago, particularly with Daley in charge.

I think one of the biggest problems that the Dems have in the rural states is the attitude of urban liberals. I mean, look at some of the posts on this website alone. They all think of everyone who doesn't vote Dem as stupid, inbred, racist hicks. I get hot and bothered myself sometimes, and I know they are not talking about me. However, they are talking about my relatives and friends.

A big issue I know of in the rural areas are schools. I know that inner city schools generally have it worse, but unless a school has a big taxpayer in the district, like a nuke plant or such, the schools are really hurting. There is never enough money. In my old hometown, they've probably had over 10 area high schools shut down in the last 15 years. Then that crowds the high schools they move into and just exacerbates the problem.

Still, I think the biggest problem is the attitude. Lose the bigotry. I thought the Democratic party was supposed to be the one of tolerance. We have to be better then them.

[Meritaten1]

32. Funny you should mention bigotry

in terms of urban versus rural. My impression is that Democrats and progressives in general maintain "a big tent"-- hence the existence of this forum, discussing rural issues.

Quite frankly, bigotry of any kind (including urban versus rural) is not something that I associate with Democrats, Greens and progressives in general-- that kind of stereotypical thinking seems to be a specialty of the regressives who govern through a politics of division, pitting one interest group against another.

For example, some of the poorest counties in the country are found in rural areas of the Great Plains. The Bush economic agenda, promoting tax cuts for the richest one percent of the population, hardly benefits the majority of the people who live in these areas. Democrats and progressives do offer a better alternative for voters in poor rural counties, in my opinion, precisely because of the big tent factor. The government should safeguard the public interest, not just the special financial needs of the wealthiest one percent of the population.

[RiDuvessa]

35. I am not arguing that the democrats would be better or worse

But we are talking about perception. And urban Democrats are perceived as being arrogant, condescending, and pushy in most rural areas. And as for bigotry, you only have to go into any discussion, and you will see democrats/liberals on this very website making derogatory comments toward rural America. Ignorant hicks is about the nicest thing I have heard them called. Racists, bigoted, rednecks, hicks are all words that I have read on threads in this website. Terms are thrown toward rural America that would never be tolerated when applied to other groups.

[Meritaten1]

36. I live in rural America

and must respectfully disagree with you, RiDuvessa.

I think the very fact we can discuss this topic on a forum devoted to rural issues indicates that Democrats and progressives espouse tolerance of diverse points of view.

Democrats and progressives offer the best hope for rural America. Compared to many other sites, particularly the regressive ones, DU provides an excellent and safe forum in which to express diverging points of view.

[RiDuvessa]

37. I lived in rural America too.

For twenty-one years. And I still have numerous relatives in the area that keep me up to date on local politics. And I must respectfully disagree with you.

It doesn't matter to most rural conservatives whether or not the Democrats policies would be better for them economically. (I happen to agree with you that they would.) Most rural conservatives carry the perception that urban liberals are arrogant and condescending. They think that liberals don't care about their views on guns, hunting, and don't care about their schools and infrastructure. They believe that urban liberals think they are stupid. And many of the posts on this website (not this particular forum) support that view.

Whether or not we can discuss issues calmly on a particular website is not going to change rural Republicans to Democrats.

[Meritaten1]

38. Rural Republicans will join us

when they fully understand how much Democrats and progressives offer them, we can certainly agree about that RiDuvessa. The outdated regressive philosophy looks to the past, and does not meet the needs of rural Americans anymore, especially in economic terms. I think you raise an important concern when you emphasize the need to communicate Democratic values effectively.

Protecting our family rights and civil liberties, enhancing choices in everyday life and unifying the country to place America First by keeping jobs at home and expanding economic opportunities for middle and lower income workers are worthy goals shared by progressives and most people in rural America.

[RiDuvessa]

39. Yes, I think we can agree on that.

Great discussion. :)

[ashling]

51. Obviously, but the problem is perception

All the "fuck the south" threads, etc. There is a LOT of the type of language and sense of superiority that RiDuvessa ia talking about.

The fact that there we can have this forum on this board does not negate this in any way. And as long as it goes on, it just pushes people away.

[cattleman22]

41. I agree n/t

[Kali]

40. I agree completely

We use some of the accounting tricks you mention, but we are hardly living some kind of high lifestyle, and a new truck every year???
bwahahahahahahahahahahhahaha. The neighbors do drive a pretty new vehicle, I admit, they are also in debt to their eyeballs. That money the "corp" pays out or those ranch expenses still have to be generated somehow. If there is a little break on my income tax because we can write off the groceries (that we don't grow ourselves) don't worry it gets made up in the extra gas and tires and other little expenses we bear all the time.

Its not like the "extra" income would have been enough to change the tax bracket anyway.

New truck every year. Good one. I'm still rotflmao! Can you say 1990 Dodge PU and a 91 Ford van? (in the shop at the moment getting a new tranny) I wish.


Another huge issue in the west is the viewscape or open space value, that ranchers/farmers provide (without compensation). It is just beginning to be recognized that there are more "values" to what we are doing than raising food.

[cattleman22]

15. A variety of issues

1. Private property rights. People in urban areas live so close together, that they give up some private property rights to create a more functional living arrangment. However, people in rural areas live further apart and are very protective of private property rights. One example I have heard rural people discuss is how the Endangered species Act allows the federal government to essentially take land without reimbursement. One other example is with zoning laws. Many rural people consider their land as their retirement investment. But then the land gets rezoned and the value may plummet.


2. Gun rights. People in rural areas tend to be far more protective of the 2nd Amendment than urba people. The Gun control crowd in the Democratic legitimately scares many rural people.



3. The perceived elitism of liberals. I remember a quote from Clinton about the Vietnam War. It went something like "We did not send out best and brightest, we sent kids from rural areas...." This attitude gets under the skin of rural areas. Another example of this is when people who used to live in urban areas move out to rural areas and then want to urbanize the rural area. The example I have heard about is that a family moved from the city to a rural county. The 16 year old kid was speeding on a curvy country road. He then ran into a piece of farm machinery that was also travelling on teh road with all required reflectors and lights. The family then started a petition to change state law to keep all farm equipment off of public roads.

4. Affirmative action. This is more controversial. Some rural people want this ended because they are racist and want to keep people of color down. However, some rural people who grew up in poverty hear stories about wealthy black students getting advantages that they never received simply due to their skin color. This creates bitterness. Yes this may be the anomoly, but aparently it does happen.


There are probably more than are not coming to mind right away.

[democratreformed]

17. Cattleman, I can concur with your views.

The only one of these that I haven't come in contact with is the rezoning issue. Maybe that's b/c I live "too far out" for that one. The closest city limits is seven miles away and the town is about 2700 pop.

[cattleman22]

20. In Eastern states, many people live within a long commute of cities

The largest town in the county I grew up in had 500 people. This county had a high proportion of ex-urbanites who moved out to the rural area. They got a law passed requiring a minimum of 25 acres in order to build a house. This did two things.
1. It pretty much prevented lower income people from remaining in the county unless they inherited a house.

2. Made it very hard for farmers to sell off some of their land in tough times or for retirement.


Other counties are doing this as well. I believe in Loudon county in VA, some portions of teh county require a minimum of 50 acres to build a house.

[democratreformed]

21. I would like to respond with "You're kidding me" but, unfortunately,

I know that you're not. I have NEVER heard of such in my life. Minimum acres to build a house? That seems crazy. Here where I live, you have to have a minimum number of acres to bypass certain requirements (perk test for septic tank is one), but you can do what you want on your own land (within the law of course).

[cattleman22]

29. About minimum of 50 acres to build a house.

I believe it was democratic politicians who enacted this policy. So in rural areas, Democrats are facing a pretty big hurdle right from the start.

[MuseRider]

30. That is how it is here too.

You are supposed to have a minimum of 3 acres for septic and pass a perk test. This is required when you buy your land to build unless you are developing a housing site and you are a builder. They let them get by with much less and there are many problems that have come about because of that. Sewage in your backyard for one thing and it makes it miserable to live anywhere near those developments.

I can see both pros and cons to this issue. I am so very tired of good pasture land becoming housing developments for rich people who want to pay less property taxes and say they live in the country. (this sounds like reverse snobbery and really it probably is. I can understand the desire to live in the country but not the need to live there and change it into a development) We are losing a lot of farm land that way and they rarely stay there for long once they find out what it really takes to be rural unless they can afford "help". The price of land where my farm is has doubled in the last 10 years because of the developers so most who want a large hunk can't afford it so it does not get used for farming. That seems to be the biggest issue here. The only minimum for acreage around here is the septic and that really only applies to an individual. It is sad either way I guess.

[sandnsea]

43. septic tank law

That seems to me to be a good law. Isn't anybody aware of how badly our ground water is being polluted?

[democratreformed]

44. However, to give you a specific example:

My dad owns 160 acres of land. He ended up with my g'pa's old place (most of it) and bought 80 acres more. Smack dab in the middle of his acreage on the road, I own 1.1 acres which I bought from my uncle.

My daughter recently put a house trailer on the corner of my lot. Because we only own 1.1 acres - it cost her $2500 to get water and sewer instead of $300 - $400. We couldn't even tell them that my dad would allow her field lines to be run on his property b/c then, they said, the water would have to be put in HIS name.

The rule here is that, if you own 10 acres or more, you don't have to do the perk test and have your septic system approved by the health department. Otherwise, you do and it costs out the butt.

[MuseRider]

19. Have you seen this?

http://www.tidepool.org/original_content.cfm?articleid=...

I thought it was interesting when I read it. Oh, and welcome to this group. You raise some good issues and issues we can correct. The elitism I worry about because it is my experience that just being from a city makes one a little suspect from the get go. Lots to think about and work out. Thanks, I hope you frequent this group.

Edits the link is not working The previous time I put it up it did, you may need to type it in and include the 3 ... after

[Meritaten1]

22. Some complaints include:

1. A perception (fair or not) by rural voters of a lack of interest in their concerns and in local issues on the part of the state and national levels of the Democratic Party;
2. Failure to communicate Democratic values effectively (Republicans talk about character and principles and emphasize personalities, Democrats list issues and discuss policies);
3. Demographic concerns (aging rural population with insufficient recruitment of new voters/younger Democrats to maintain the local rural party effectively);

Additionally, although I have not heard complaints about these points, two other items that might pertain:

4. A lot of elderly rural voters still do NOT utilize the Internet-- they obtain news through print, TV, radio and by word of mouth. The recent GOTV efforts failed to reach some of these people to the extent that an Internet connection/email was assumed as a primary source of contact.
5. The long term impact of neglect of rural voters may have resulted in some instances in a failure to maintain updated databases/contacts on the local level-- lists of voters may be out of date, and voter contacts with the local party so infrequent or sporadic that it can be difficult to recruit campaign volunteers and candidates for local offices.

[renaissanceguy]

23. Pardon me if this offends you, but....

it seems that our so-called elitist perception might really be the deep South's ignorance to the facts, or their refusal/inability to analyze facts to come to a rational decision. Character is easy to put into simple terms, but with facts and ideas, it's not always black and white.

Maybe the South has a problem seeing shades of grey?

[Meritaten1]

24. No offense taken renaissanceguy

I think you raise an interesting point.

My comments did not pertain to rural voters in the deep South (my neighbors live in the Great Plains), although perhaps rural Southern voters share some of the same concerns. Complaints that I have heard about the way the Democratic Party presents itself suggest that it is not marketing its values as effectively as possible in rural areas.

It seems to me that the burden of communicating shades of gray rests squarely with the Democratic Party; i.e. I was not suggesting that issues and policies are unimportant, or should be handled in a simplistic manner, merely that by not stressing values and principles and personalities the Democratic Party has not utilized an effective mechanism for transmitting and communicating its leadership goals in rural areas.

In terms of communicating values, a specific example comes to mind: Senator Kerry was attacked very unfairly by the GOP during the 2004 presidential campaign as a "flip-flopper" and his positions were distorted. The Senator actually possesses a lengthy record of accomplishments in the Senate and he is an intellectual, so it does not seem unreasonable that his positions and legislative record might encompass complex issues.

What steps might have been taken to counter the misimpressions created by the Republican efforts to mischaracterize him as a "flip-flopper"? An article that appeared in a Las Vegas newspaper reported an incident that occurred several years ago which might have been effective for Democrats in countering this misimpression in rural areas:http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2004/feb/06/516309920.html . The article describes how Senator Kerry reacted decisively when he happened across a former Republican senator choking on an apple core. Senator Kerry promptly performed the Heimlich maneuver not once, but four times, effectively saving the man's life.

The incident does not appear to have been stressed by the Kerry campaign, but the account is effective from a marketing standpoint because (1) it demonstrates that Senator Kerry took decisive and effective action in a crisis and (2)it dispells the image of him as a vacillating "flip-flopper" unsure of how to proceed by presenting him in a leadership role. Additionally, the episode lends itself to a story format that is easily understood and appreciated on an emotional level by people of all educational backgrounds.

I am certainly not suggesting that Democrats or the Democratic Party should refrain from engaging voters intellectually by advancing issues and specific policies; merely that the message should also include more blatantly emotive appeals as well in order to be effective.

[cattleman22]

28. Why are you blaming the South?

Even in blue states, the rural areas are just about all red as well. My perception is that there is not much of a North South divide, but rather a very stark rural urban divide.

[jwirr]

25. It is almost like two totally different cultures.

I grew up in rural Iowa. We had good schools and most of the people were well to do farmers. But we did not know about the rest of the world and sometimes we didn't even know about our own neighbors. In my community we almost never saw people of color and I distinctly remember the first time I saw a black man when we visited a city 100 miles away from our home. That was the last black person I saw for many years. Another example is the church group who went collecting money for CROP to feed the hungry in other countries. They found themselves knocking on the door of one of their neighbors at supper time. The father of the family was so angry that he blew up. His family had nothing to eat but eggs and macaroni for every meal the last 6 months. They could not afford more, they were going broke and losing their farm.

This is why we have trouble working together in rural/urban areas even today. We do not understand each other even when we hear about each other. We are as far from sharing experiences of life as we can get. I think that the examples I gave from the rural life can be found from a urban perspective just the same way. Programs that work for rural people do not necessarily work for urban people and vise versa. Our needs are different.

I do think that we in urban settings need to start to understand just how dependent we are on farmers. It is to our benefit to see that they succeed. They feed us and if we are diligent they may be growing much of our sustainable energy in the future.

[Padraig18]

26. Zoning, gun rights, inheritance/death-tax issues, health-care and...

... 'the party lacks a clear message'. These are some of the big issues people here have with the Democratic party.

[Krs216]

27. Most of my neighbors are fruitcakes

They are terrified that the Democrats will take away thier guns. One is a cop, who has to buy his own guns and claims that gun laws, passed by Democrats, or more specifically the Assault Weapons Ban has cost him thousands of dollars in inflated prices for tools that are required for his job. He says that he is an independant but always votes for republicans because of the gun issue. I told him that I would rather him have to pay a little more for assault weapons than have to have innocent people mowed down by these things.

[TheMightyFavog]

33. Oh yes, the gun issue is big....

Take this whole shooting rampage that went on. A lot of the wingnuts in my local rural area are convinced that the "liberals in the media and Governor Doyle are spinning this to fit their anti-gun agenda".

If only these people knew that most of the people who are members of my county party are gun owners themselves.

[Lithos]

34. It's an issue of ignorance

While I am not going to get into the RKBA issue, I agree totally that gun ownership means different things between rural and urban areas. To the common person in either area, guns simply mean different things.



L-

[Bullseye10]

45. Elitism!

Obviously, since most of your Neighbors are "Fruitcakes", you must be thought of as an "elistist Democrat" by them? This IS the problem!

[sandnsea]

42. Small towns voted 50/50

I think we make a mistake in not recognizing what really happened in the vote. Bush won in the suburbs, first of all. The other part of his vote came from very rural America, farmers, ranchers, miners, loggers. Small towns split 50/50 and I think it's because of the internet. It's the only other option for news besides the weekly paper.

There are definitely some hurdles to overcome between city and country, but I think most of it is just lying stereotypes thrown out there by the right. As soon as we knock one down, they'll just throw out another one. We have to work on getting Democratic Party principles out there and explain them better. Just be better organized and a stronger voice. Dancing by the Repulican tune will never get us anywhere.

[ChairOne]

46. Answer no-one here is going to like....

I'm sick of how everyone wants to pander to bigoted gay-bashing religous zealot hicks.

Tbe problem isn't our being appealing to them, but vice-versa. They've made their stance clear: the only thing they care about is preventing gays from getting married, state's rights (racism), and voting against their own economic interests.

I say we let them stew in their own drool while they get fucked up the economic ass by the bigoted gay-bashing republicans they voted for. I'd rather look for another constituency that actually brings moral value to the Democratic party - not just votes. I'd rather lose elections than have creationist-teaching, war-mongering bigots in my party.

So there's my suggestion for your list: rural folks don't perceive the Democratic Party as being bigoted enough for them. So they went to the republicans. Just like what what's-his-name telling LBJ...

[RiDuvessa]

47. What an intelligent, reasoned response!

Besides being overdone trollbait, your post indicates a lack of thought and contains several inaccurate generalizations.

First, right now, State's rights are working for the Democratic party. From the Massachusetts court ruling on gay marriage to the California resolution regarding CO2 emissions from cars, states are pushing the envelope on liberal issues. State's rights do not automatically mean racism.

Second, your prejudice against rural America blinds you to the fact that several rural states and counties had a significant percentage of the rural vote go to Kerry. There are many kind, caring, reasonable individuals in rural America who are worth going after.

Finally, I would point out that bigotry against rural Americans is just as immoral and wrong as bigotry against gays and African Americans. When we stereotype people, reasonable debate always suffers.

[ChairOne]

48. Then you and I disagree....

... on your literacy...

I see significantly more than 1/2 the country vote for bush. I see bush cleaning up in rural America. I see bush and the republican leadership standing for bigotry against gay folks, black folks, and women. I see that the Democrats used to have a lot of that in their party. Then they all left and became republicans (I ignore good ol zigzag). They are now reaping the benefits of pandering to rural America.

I see relatively little problem with the democratic party, beyond their continued attempts to pander to the worst among us. There is this completely unjustified assumption that there is something substantially *wrong* with the Democratic party. I suppose this idea comes from the fact that we've been losing elections left and right lately. But that's a mistake - it isn't the job of the party to win elections, it's the job of the party to represent its members.

The republican party does a bang-up job of this (ignoring our log cabin friends, of course). The problem isn't with either party, but rather the fact that one of them has so many more members than the other. The reason is that the republican party believes in bigotry, and rural folks do too. That is, the republican party better represents rural folks.

The problem isn't the Democratic party. The problem is rural republican voters, who strongly believe in bigotry, are trenchantly anti-education, and insist on voting against their economic interests to further both.

I am not "prejudiced" against rural folks, nor did I make any unjustified generalizations. I did not say anything resembling "every single rural person is thus-and-so". I say that horses have four legs - and I stand by it. Even being shown a horse with three legs (car accident, genetic defect, what-have-you) doesn't make me rescind my statement. I'll leave it you y'all to reconcile this, and then apply it to my remarks about "rural folks".

And I still giggle my ass off when i see white folks, who, after seeing the awesome effect of black folks using the words "prejudice" and "bigotry", take up those same words everytime someone says something they don't like, in the hopes of silencing opposition.

And the phrase "states rights" means one and only one thing to anyone who isn't a fool. There may, therefore, be large parts of the country where the phrase has more than one meaning.

[RiDuvessa]

49. How can a party represent..

when it can't win an election? I would agree with you that a party's main purpose is to represent its members, but when the party cannot win an election, it cannot efficiently represent the will of its members.

I would say that something is wrong with a party when it can't even win the governor's race in the most blue of States and when the last two mayors of one of the country's largest and bluest cities were Republicans as well.

Also, when you make sweeping generalizations about a particular group of people, like you did in your above post, "The reason is that the republican party believes in bigotry, and rural folks do too." Then you ARE guilty of prejudice and bigotry, whether it makes you giggle or not. Your horse analogy does not stand up to scrutiny, because a horse physically does have four legs. If I said "black people are lazy" or "gays are immoral and corrupt" I would be guilty of prejudice and stereotyping, just as you are by your above statement.

Now, in regards to your states rights beliefs, if you are going to make statements, I wish you would bring examples to bolster your arguments. I did in my previous post, and have many more examples to bring to the fore.

As for using the words bigotry and prejudice to stifle argument, I do not believe I suggested that you couldn't speak or that you should leave the forum. I disagreed with you and hoped that you would bring facts rather then feelings to your arguments. I suggested that we could elevate the argument. If you feel I am trying to stifle you, I am sorry.

I think the point of this argument is that rural Americans have their own issues, and that the Democratic Party could do a better job of illustrating their position on these issues. I do not think that the Democratic Party needs to change its position on issues, but it does need to find a way to market itself better. Because if you can't win elections, then you can't represent you constituents properly.

[ChairOne]

50. Fine.... to put it nicely, you and I disagree...

... on much, apparently...

>How can a party represent when it can't win an election?

Easy. There are a variety of ways. By having a platform. By functioning as a meaningful minority party. By working to convince people that their platform is the better. Duh.

>I would agree with you that a party's main purpose is to represent >its members, but when the party cannot win an election, it cannot >efficiently represent the will of its members.

In my view, you have a narrow view of "represent".

>I would say that something is wrong with a party when it can't even >win the governor's race in the most blue of States and when the >last two mayors of one of the country's largest and bluest cities >were Republicans as well.

In my view, you have a narrow view of the problem. I think that the inability to win at the ballot box is an indication of a disjunctive problem: the problem is EITHER with the candidate/party OR with the jackasses who are doing the voting.

Everyone here seems to be happy to one see one fork of the problem... I'll spare you my yankee conjectures as to why this might be...

I do think it's a cute end-run for rural folks to try to remake the Democratic party into the republican party tho, by hitting them over the head incessantly about how Democrats don't respect them or some such thing. Do something respectable.

LOL - another cute end-run around: your idea that I need to "prove" that the phrase "states' rights" means racism. That's a gem I'll save.

To say of bigots, that they are bigots, is not bigotry - no matter how desperately white folks wish that it were.

The point is that I see two possible reasons why candidates might lose elections, and you folks can't countenance more than one.

It's all good tho - as long as dem dam faggots can't get married, and we don't see no more of our white women hussyin themselves on niggers - the bulk of rural America will have been satisfied... (shoulda probably said something about god in there, but nothing catchy occurred to me)

[RiDuvessa]

52. I guess we just disagree.

By the way, I apologize for calling your post a troll in my first response. After reading the posting rules again, I realize that was inappropriate. I apologize.

[ChairOne]

53. It's all good - I've been called worse... (wonder why?) LOL ;) /eom

[cattleman22]

55. RE:"To say of bigots, that they are bigots, is not bigotry"

But that is not what you said. You apparently are so bigotted yourself, that you think there is nothing wrong with stereotyping all rural people as bigots.

[cattleman22]

54. If you equate states rights only with racism, then maybe it is you who

needs to have a more open mind.

[skippythwndrdog]

56. Elitist, pushy.

Folks seem to think that the Democratic Party is the party of city folks from the northeast and California whackos. They want nothing to do with those people and just want to be left alone. They think that the government should stay out of their lives, away from their guns, and away from their religion. They want lower taxes. Kerry got creamed in rural areas precisely because he is a city guy from the northeast who has a less than exemplary record on firearms and was preceived as a gun grabber. We couldn't have had a worse candidate for getting rural votes.

[Karthun]

57. ...

ChairOne is the major reason why the Dem's have problems in rural America.

I live in a rural area, town of 5000. The city voted for Kerry (60/40). But ChairOne considers us, "bigoted gay-bashing religious zealot hicks."

You sir are part of the problem, not the solution.

[RiDuvessa]

58. I wonder if we can change the Democratic Party's perception.

As you can see by some of the posts on this thread, many Democrats have a stereotyped view of rural Americans.

I'm not sure we can change rural America's view of the Democratic Party until we change the Democrats view of rural America.

I am from central Illinois, and I KNOW that rural voters will vote for a Democrat. The only problem is that too often in other states, the Democrats write off rural voters.

Small towns can change their views, it just takes a little work. I have seen it. My hometown was extremely socially conservative. There were no minorities in my town. (other then women) Now, they have a few, and after a few growing pains, they are accepted. All it takes is people with patience. And people who don't condescend. People who don't have a preconceived notion of rural America.

I don't think that we have enough Democrats who believe that. I think that too many think that small town people are right-wing pseudo-Christian bigots who all belong to white supremacy groups. That has been my experience. And unfortunately, the MSM perpetuates that stereotype.

How can we change this perception? Is it impossible? I don't think so, because Democrats tend to be more openminded. I just don't know how.

[Qanisqineq]

59. Absolutely!

"As you can see by some of the posts on this thread, many Democrats have a stereotyped view of rural Americans.
I'm not sure we can change rural America's view of the Democratic Party until we change the Democrats view of rural America."

You are absolutely correct. There are far too many democrats that are stereotyping rural Americans. Frankly, as someone that grew up in rural America, sometimes it makes me want to say "screw the democrats". We can't call ourselves the openminded party if we are always stereotyping.

[Karthun]

60. ...

90% of the people I know fall in line with the Democrats, EXCEPT on the gun issue, and its a killer. The only thing that these people see is the vocal democrats in Washington want to restrict guns. We are considered "flyover land" by both coasts and the additude shown towards rural America is just condensending.

[RiDuvessa]

61. But how do we change that view?

That's the problem I am having. Do we just keep responding to posts to let people know that there are liberal rurals? It's not like we can march or hold protests. I am completely stumped.

[Karthun]

62. ..

6 years ago, I almost thought there was more hope reforming the Republican party then the Democratic. Sad I know :///