Why rural voters don’t vote Democratic anymore

[Warren Dew]

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined. 

Do you have any examples of the right claiming that gun murders are not evil?  If not, this is a false equivalency.  The right is not trying to ban scalpels because they might be used for abortions.

Quote:These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

Abortion is not a rural/urban issue.  In fact, a substantial amount of Trump's support came from rural people who couldn't vote for Republicans aiming for abortion bans, but were okay with Trump exactly because he was seen as soft on abortion.

Quote:I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

Touchee.

[Warren Dew]

(12-04-2016, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 04:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I would not, since it applies not just to the Libertarian Party but to Reaganomics/trickle-down-- the whole free-market caboodle. Conspiracy: spend much, tax little, increase the debt, and thus reduce the size of government to fit in a bathtub. Precisely stated as such by the conspirators; widely proliferated conspiracy. And it's the biggest problem that we have today.

The only thing that would make it not a "conspiracy," perhaps, is that it's not a secret. But the real secret is, the slogans are deceptive, and too many people don't realize that fact. Resentment against poor (ethnic) "freeloaders" receiving government benefits "from my taxes" powers the phenomenon.

The conspiracy is so vast that the most dedicated conspirators practically own the internet, where they congregate out of proportion to their real numbers.

I prefer to distinguish between the Republicans and Libertarians. 

You should also distinguish between Libertarians and libertarians.

The fact is, the capital L Libertarian party is no more, and probably less, lowercase l libertarian than is the Republican party.  The vast majority of libertarians vote Republican, not Libertarian.  Philosophically, libertarians are properly distinguished from progressives, conservatives, liberals, and the like, not from political parties.

Quote:Both share a preference for economic schemes that increase the division of wealth

Back to the propaganda, I see.

[The Wonkette]

(12-02-2016, 10:19 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 12:20 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 12:00 PM)Odin Wrote: Pro-Choice activists need to quit insinuating that any man who is against abortion must be a misogynist who hates women and that any woman who is against abortion must be "brainwashed by patriarchal religion".

Also, I have run into extremists who think I'm a horrible person because I think abortion is a necessary evil rather than a "liberating social good". And these people wonder why they are then accused of being a part of a "culture of death" by folks out here in Middle America...

Eminently reasonable. Abortion is a desperate choice -- or at times a medical necessity. I can't imagine anyone seeing abortion as a 'liberating social good' anymore than I can see amputation of a gangrenous limb, a hysterectomy to remove a cancer-filled uterus, or castration of a man with prostate cancer as anything other than a grim necessity.

Some people simply go too far.

Castration is not a treatment for prostate cancer, rather removal of the prostate is--the result is of course impotence. Most hysterectomies are ill advised.

As for abortion I'd liken it less to amputation of a gangrenous limb but more the murder that it actually is. Unfortunately were it illegal they would still be performed anyway, and under far more dangerous circumstances. Except for a small minority of persons, they are the last resort, and as such the solution to limiting this necessary evil lays not in prohibition but rather in economic improvements, promotion of the family--particularly the traditional heterosexual family (nuclear or extended, in fact extended is even better than nuclear), and liberalization of adoption protocols.

As for why rural people do not vote for democrats the answer is clear. The Democratic party doesn't give a shit about them. HRC made that abundantly clear when she essentially called these people a basket of deplorable. The DNC and the Democratic Elites including the ethnic ones live in their own urban coastal bubble.

As a dark skinned homosexual black man I've received more bigotry and racism at the hands of so-called liberals than from any of the deplorable red necks I've been known to run with.

Again, this equating abortion with murder -- most abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Do you see terminating a pregnancy that early to be equivalent to murder? At what point does the embryo/fetus enjoy the status of "personhood" that would make killing it murder?

[Eric the Green]

(12-04-2016, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 04:12 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I would not, since it applies not just to the Libertarian Party but to Reaganomics/trickle-down-- the whole free-market caboodle. Conspiracy: spend much, tax little, increase the debt, and thus reduce the size of government to fit in a bathtub. Precisely stated as such by the conspirators; widely proliferated conspiracy. And it's the biggest problem that we have today.

The only thing that would make it not a "conspiracy," perhaps, is that it's not a secret. But the real secret is, the slogans are deceptive, and too many people don't realize that fact. Resentment against poor (ethnic) "freeloaders" receiving government benefits "from my taxes" powers the phenomenon.

The conspiracy is so vast that the most dedicated conspirators practically own the internet, where they congregate out of proportion to their real numbers.

I prefer to distinguish between the Republicans and Libertarians.  Both share a preference for economic schemes that increase the division of wealth, but the Republicans push cultural issues like guns and reproductive health care more.  This makes enough difference to me to count.

Sure, that's true; but both groups are part of the vast libertarian conspiracy, because they both push libertarian economics, and that's what counts the most. And it's what they have delivered on for policy and control of the country for 35 years. The Republicans alone have been less successful on the cultural issues, though both parties/groups have also been successful pushing their libertarian policy on the public safety issue of guns.

[Eric the Green]

(12-04-2016, 10:19 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm libertarian minded and I uphold and share common libertarian beliefs. I believe the market should decide what business win and lose/survive and fail. I don't believe government should be involved in favoritism and giving market advantages or bailouts. I'm not as idealistic or as ideologically pure as a Libertarian voter. I vote Republican because the Libertarian party has no chance nationally. America is basically a mish mash of common beliefs and a mish mash of different kinds of people. America has good and bad people and a gray area in between. America has sane people and crazy people and another gray area in between. This is my view of America.

I know the Clinton Chumps are looking/acting pretty silly/foolish today. That's a for sure. Trump Chump is speculative at this point and primarily based on the beliefs of the Clinton Chumps. Fascism requires a similar system to already be in place in order for it to effectively take over and establish its rule. I'm opposed to similar systems and idea's about having a similar system established and set into place here and beliefs associated with them. What's the Northeast going to do, roll the dice with California and place its money middle America ( the folks who turned their nose up politically bitch slapped your piece of crap candidate to show you and the blue crony's of the world that common sense still rules here). Bummer ain't it. At what point have I ever been easy to manipulate or blow over and drive off. However, I can obliviously tell that you're more used to littler blue dipshits and bigger blue panzy asses. I will agree that America has a lot of chumps and people who prey on chomps. However, I would disagree with you that I'm one of them. Right now, I have zero dollars into Trump the candidate and zero dollars and zero hours of time invested into Trumps campaign and exactly the same amounts with the Republican party. I doubt that that applies to you. You've lost how much on your horrible choice for a candidate? You've lost much support for your party. You've lost how faith of your supporters. You've lost how much trust among your TV viewers. Who trusts your political analysts now? They politically cracked you dude with zero support from me. We are winning the ground game. How much money is it going to take to defeat a natural ground that is winning the battles in the bars and bowling allies and softball fields and social gatherings and kitchen tables that are happening all across middle America?

I would agree that your side is winning middle America, and Democrats are now concentrated on the Coasts. Yes, you have summarized well what we blue folks are up against. I don't know what it will take to convince the people out there to move in the best direction. Right now, you guys are hopelessly deceived, it appears. It is white America trying to make it "great" (meaning more white) again.

Perhaps the Democrats have some issues that would appeal to some of them, like to Rust Belt voters who didn't get the message of what the Democrats can do to improve their lives and their income. Obviously, Trump and the Republicans have never done anything for them at all, nor for any of you. It's just a vote for prejudice and resentment, and a vote for government to do nothing. So, enjoy your victory. You will get nothing from the creeps you elected but failure and poverty. Never have, and never will. But that does not seem to concern you.

And it should be clear to middle America, although it is not, that it's the Republicans who have been in charge and set or blocked policy for the last 35 years. The Republicans have created the situation that many middle America voters voted against, deceived by Trump's rants. But although the Republicans are responsible for their woes, their answer is to vote for them again and again, so the same failing policies are pursued. That's called insanity.

Maybe a better candidate is needed, and a better-honed message aimed at working people. Maybe offers of compromise on the cultural and gun issues might peel off a few of them too. Essentially though, the talk of blaming Democrats for poor performance or bad candidates misses one point. It's you, and people like you, who made the decision. Ultimately, whatever happens under Republican rule, the responsibility is yours, and yours alone, because of your votes.

[Odin]

American "Libertarianism" is just the political arm of the Koch Family and their 40 year campaign to brainwash the public and destroy the New Deal, so I would indeed call it a vast conspiracy.

[Warren Dew]

(12-04-2016, 10:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps the Democrats have some issues that would appeal to some of them, like to Rust Belt voters who didn't get the message of what the Democrats can do to improve their lives and their income.

I love it when you guys think your problem is the "messaging", rather than the policies.

[Warren Dew]

(12-05-2016, 12:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: why didn't you vote for Johnson? What kind of Libertarian are you?

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson increased the state budget by 75%.  That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian, no matter what party nominates him.

[Galen]

(12-05-2016, 08:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps the Democrats have some issues that would appeal to some of them, like to Rust Belt voters who didn't get the message of what the Democrats can do to improve their lives and their income.

I love it when you guys think your problem is the "messaging", rather than the policies.

One thing you can count of from the left in general and Eric the Obtuse in particular is that they have no null hypothesis.

[Eric the Green]

(12-05-2016, 12:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 12:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: why didn't you vote for Johnson? What kind of Libertarian are you?

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson increased the state budget by 75%.  That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian, no matter what party nominates him.

Are you sure? I don't remember that being his record. He vetoed most spending bills.

[Galen]

(12-05-2016, 12:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Assuming you are in Oregon your Trump vote was a wasted vote. Since any vote you made other than Clinton would have been a wasted vote (and given the outsized support for Clinton in OR, even that vote might have been considered wasted) why didn't you vote for Johnson? What kind of Libertarian are you?

Johnson and Weld are simply retread republicans which is something the LP has been attracted to in recent years.  Weld's support for Hillary also did not help matters.

[Eric the Green]

(12-05-2016, 08:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-04-2016, 10:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps the Democrats have some issues that would appeal to some of them, like to Rust Belt voters who didn't get the message of what the Democrats can do to improve their lives and their income.

I love it when you guys think your problem is the "messaging", rather than the policies.

I know you'd say that. Of course, the Democratic policies are WAY, WAY better by astronomical levels. But is it the messaging? Or is it that Americans don't get the message? As I said, Americans are responsible for how they vote. If people are hooked on libertarian economics (as you are) or Christian fundamentalism, then that is their problem, not the problem of the Democrats.

The other point is that it COULD very well be a messaging problem, when the margin is 70,000 votes in 3 rust-best states. The message from Hillary did not get through to people having hard times in those states. Many of them were also social conservative, anti-big government, etc. But with a margin that close, there would have been plenty who would have voted Democratic had Hillary been more convincing than Trump on the economic issues, and in general a better candidate.

Not addressed to non-believers like you Warren, but for whoever may be interested:

I did another new tally to add to my data base last week, and as well I had made the mistake before the election of figuring Clinton winning and Trump losing into the data base. My revised horoscope scores are, as of now, Trump 9-3 and Hillary 9-11. Hillary could not have won with that negative score. My prediction was also based on other positions in her chart that had a good track record as far as empirical data is concerned, although the sample sizes were small with these indicators. But her chart was never considered definitive; questions about her birth time remain. 

Also, I assumed that the New Moon before the election indicated the party in power would win, because it almost always indicates the popular vote winner. It did in 2000, but I didn't assume that such a fluke would occur this year. But it did, again, in the same way. The new moon method indeed predicted the popular vote winner: the party in power.

So I got the election prediction wrong, but it was a tough one to call.

If Trump's score holds, and Andrew Jacksons's score remains the same, it is interesting now that they have the same score. They are quite a bit alike.

[Warren Dew]

(12-05-2016, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 12:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 12:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: why didn't you vote for Johnson? What kind of Libertarian are you?

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson increased the state budget by 75%.  That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian, no matter what party nominates him.

Are you sure? I don't remember that being his record. He vetoed most spending bills.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...ves-beware

Much of the spending increase may have been through ineffectiveness rather than intent, but either way, his government grew, and as president, it's likely the same would have happened.

[Galen]

(12-06-2016, 05:03 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 03:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-05-2016, 12:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: As governor of New Mexico, Johnson increased the state budget by 75%.  That's pretty much the opposite of libertarian, no matter what party nominates him.

Are you sure? I don't remember that being his record. He vetoed most spending bills.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...ves-beware

Much of the spending increase may have been through ineffectiveness rather than intent, but either way, his government grew, and as president, it's likely the same would have happened.

Either way he either can't or won't do the job of reducing the size and scope of government.  That has been the problem with the LP's recent picks.

[pbrower2a]

So apparently the solution is to give all power to the Master Class?

Economic elites have rarely proved trustworthy with unrestrained power.

[Odin]

A strong government is a necessary protector of the masses against elites wishing to create an outright oligarchy. Those who wish to minimize the size and scope of government are either elites or are people like Galen who are duped by pro-elite ideologies.

[Mikebert]

(12-03-2016, 10:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The religious right and the atheist left would no doubt each love to use government to force their views on each other.  However, the gun issue doesn't work the same way, which is why I highlighted it.

On many such issues you can see someone claiming a right to live free, and another trying to prevent an evil using government authority.  The right to chose and the right to keep and bear can be seen as rights where one is and ought to be free to choose.  Gun deaths and the deaths of the unborn can be seen as evils.  If you wish to restrict the conversation to one issue only, sure, go ahead, but I'm not so inclined.  

These are but two of many issues separating the rural and urban populations.  I would like to nudge things in the direction of freedom and rights, and away from quashing evils when there is sizable and intense disagreement on whether the evil is truly evil or not.

I would think a lot of Libertarians would lean the same way.

(12-03-2016, 08:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

I would take exception to describing the libertarian conspiracy as 'vast'.

I wouldn't underestimate the size of the r-libertarian coalition that is now taking shape. Think about it. Kinser and Classic, a gay black man and a straight white guy, a Marxist and an American capitalist, a cosmopolitan and a suburbanite, a believer and a non believer united and now perceived/seen as being on the same side. I don't have a problem with Democratic voters being allowed inside the Republican tent. I don't have a problem with people like Kinser being allowed in the Republican tent either. The Republican door swings both ways. The Republican door doesn't lock behind you and force you stay inside. I have more issues with the progressive minded blue base than I've had had with Kinser himself.

 Kinser isn't a Marxist anymore. Marxists are extremists, as are their counterparts on the Right like Nazis and White Supremacists. For some reason they seem able to shift from one extreme to another without ever going through the middle.  Most folks, like me and I suspect you move from point A to point B by traveling though the terrain in between.  He don't just start at one point in one instant and appear at another in the next.  But folks like Kinser do.

[Warren Dew]

(12-06-2016, 04:41 PM)Odin Wrote: A strong government is a necessary protector of the masses against elites wishing to create an outright oligarchy.

Oh come on.  GHWBush then GWBush then Jeb?  Bill then Hillary then Chelsea?  The government was already an outright oligarchy, hereditary no less.

[Galen]

(12-06-2016, 11:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:41 PM)Odin Wrote: A strong government is a necessary protector of the masses against elites wishing to create an outright oligarchy.

Oh come on.  GHWBush then GWBush then Jeb?  Bill then Hillary then Chelsea?  The government was already an outright oligarchy, hereditary no less.

Funny how the lefties miss that.  It would do Odin much good to contemplate what Lord Acton had to say about power.  Every abusive rich person I ever knew first bought himself some government officials first.

[Odin]

(12-06-2016, 11:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 04:41 PM)Odin Wrote: A strong government is a necessary protector of the masses against elites wishing to create an outright oligarchy.

Oh come on.  GHWBush then GWBush then Jeb?  Bill then Hillary then Chelsea?  The government was already an outright oligarchy, hereditary no less.

LOL, Bill was born Arkansas white trash, he would have never become president in the first place if the US were a full-blown oligarchy.

Comparing the Bushes and the Clintons is a moronic comparison.