Why rural voters don’t vote Democratic anymore

[Dan '82]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...l-america/

Quote:U.S. Rep. Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota is one of the last members of a dying breed: the rural conservative Democrat. He has represented Minnesota's 7th Congressional District for a quarter-century, since 1991. The district encompasses most of the western half of the state. It's farm country, a broad swath of fields and open prairie running from the South Dakota border all the way up to Canada.
The people Peterson represents are overwhelmingly white and moderately conservative. According to the Cook Political Report, Peterson was one of nine Democrats sent to Congress from a district that voted for Romney in 2012.
Most counties in Peterson's district swung hard toward Trump this year, by margins of 20, 30, 40 percentage points or more. But Peterson himself still earned 52.5 percent of the vote, enough to head to Congress for a 14th term...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...l-america/

[Bob Butler 54]

That's about the best post-mortem of the recent election that I've seen.  It was written by a Democratic representative from a rural area.  He spends a lot of ink on gerrymandering, but thinks Democrats should pay more attention to farming policy, not force urban values on rural folk, and requiring health care buys that folks just can't afford is a problem.

Worth a read.

[FLBones]

Democrats are too socially liberal on abortion and gay marriage.

[Odin]

(11-25-2016, 01:27 AM)Dan Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...l-america/

Quote:U.S. Rep. Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota is one of the last members of a dying breed: the rural conservative Democrat. He has represented Minnesota's 7th Congressional District for a quarter-century, since 1991. The district encompasses most of the western half of the state. It's farm country, a broad swath of fields and open prairie running from the South Dakota border all the way up to Canada.
The people Peterson represents are overwhelmingly white and moderately conservative. According to the Cook Political Report, Peterson was one of nine Democrats sent to Congress from a district that voted for Romney in 2012.
Most counties in Peterson's district swung hard toward Trump this year, by margins of 20, 30, 40 percentage points or more. But Peterson himself still earned 52.5 percent of the vote, enough to head to Congress for a 14th term...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...l-america/

Peterson is my congressman and he makes a lot of good points, here. The one on how gerrymandering reinforces the urban "bubble" is one I haven't heard before and it makes complete sense. He also mentions party leaders' unwillingness to compromise on social issues out here in rural areas.

The Dems' lack of ground game on the state level is another thing he mentions, our collapse at the state level out here in Middle America has been catastrophic.

[Eric the Green]

If Democrats become Republicans, there isn't must point in electing them. Compromise can be wise, but it has its limits.

If health care affordability is a concern, is there any chance that some rural voters will understand that the answer is more socialism, not less? Red state Senate Democrats killed the public option in 2009; would that have made a difference?

[Odin]

(11-25-2016, 04:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Democrats become Republicans, there isn't must point in electing them. Compromise can be wise, but it has its limits.

If health care affordability is a concern, is there any chance that some rural voters will understand that the answer is more socialism, not less? Red state Senate Democrats killed the public option in 2009; would that have made a difference?

So people who are economically liberal but are against abortion are not real Democrats?

[Eric the Green]

(11-25-2016, 05:41 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 04:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Democrats become Republicans, there isn't must point in electing them. Compromise can be wise, but it has its limits.

If health care affordability is a concern, is there any chance that some rural voters will understand that the answer is more socialism, not less? Red state Senate Democrats killed the public option in 2009; would that have made a difference?

So people who are economically liberal but are against abortion are not real Democrats?

Democrats can't abandon women's concern for control of their reproduction. However, I believe compromise is possible on this issue. The problem is one of heat rather than light.

[Odin]

(11-25-2016, 06:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 05:41 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 04:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Democrats become Republicans, there isn't must point in electing them. Compromise can be wise, but it has its limits.

If health care affordability is a concern, is there any chance that some rural voters will understand that the answer is more socialism, not less? Red state Senate Democrats killed the public option in 2009; would that have made a difference?

So people who are economically liberal but are against abortion are not real Democrats?

Democrats can't abandon women's concern for control of their reproduction. However, I believe compromise is possible on this issue. The problem is one of heat rather than light.

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...

[Eric the Green]

(11-26-2016, 12:00 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 06:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 05:41 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 04:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Democrats become Republicans, there isn't must point in electing them. Compromise can be wise, but it has its limits.

If health care affordability is a concern, is there any chance that some rural voters will understand that the answer is more socialism, not less? Red state Senate Democrats killed the public option in 2009; would that have made a difference?

So people who are economically liberal but are against abortion are not real Democrats?

Democrats can't abandon women's concern for control of their reproduction. However, I believe compromise is possible on this issue. The problem is one of heat rather than light.

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...

It's too bad we are hung up on these culture wars issues, when they can be solved and it's time to move on. But the two sides seem to be dug in, and it is like a religion to each side.

[pbrower2a]

(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.

[pbrower2a]

Posted in another thread, but relevant to this one (but since modified) :

There's a far simpler explanation, and it has nothing to do with rural people being unsophisticated hicks. Rural voters are less sophisticated only to the extent that the Mountain and Deep South are more rural than America on the whole. High-school completion rates are very high in the rural North. Why shouldn't they be? There just aren't many distractions in northern rural areas to cause someone to drop out of school. Unless one wants to stay on the family farm, one will need a college education, so college attendance rates are above average.

It's the difference in the costs of public services and infrastructure. Such basic needs of education and law enforcement are much more expensive in cities than in rural areas. Anyone trained to be a teacher or a cop in rural areas has few alternatives, and will almost certainly be paid far less than his urban counterparts. Cost of living? that's not the whole story, although the cost of living in part reflects the cost of public services and taxes for paying them. An urban teacher has typically a skill set well fitting sales, professional white collar jobs, and blue-collar management. Those opportunities are rare in rural areas. The best predictor of pay is pay in comparable work -- if it is available. Rural areas might have sweat-shop manufacturing or retail and restaurant work, so the farmer's wife who teaches fifth grade doesn't get paid well. Police? Urban police departments must pay the police well so that they do not become de facto employees of gangsters. Law enforcement is thus much more expensive in big cities than in rural areas. Think also of tax collection, courts of law, and the welfare system.

Look also at infrastructure. A four-lane expressway in the Dakotas is typically far less costly to build than a similar expressway in northeastern New Jersey; in fact, such an expressway might be woefully inadequate in northeastern New Jersey, where expansion of a ten-lane expressway to twelve lanes requires expensive condemnation of real estate and dislocation of people and costly relocation of utilities. But a two-lane blacktop (US 83) is apparently adequate for connecting the state capitals of North and South Dakota. An expressway is not built because it is a bargain to build in comparison to a superficially-similar highway somewhere else.

Now another point: government is necessarily much more intrusive in urban areas. If your pet dog craps at the edge a corn field, then nobody knows. If your dog craps on an urban sidewalk, then everyone knows. If the police see you walking away from the scene of the fouling of a sidewalk, then you will get ticketed and you may pay a very steep fine. Government is more intrusive in urban areas, and such is expected, because it is far easier to get in someone else's way. People expect their government to be more costly and intrusive in rural areas. People in rural areas don't like paying taxes to support the higher cost of city dwellers. The low-tax pols, low-service pols are now Republicans, in part because rural folks don't like paying high taxes to support needs in bigger cities. Rural Michigan is about as politically conservative as Oklahoma.

[Kinser79]

(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.

[Kinser79]

(11-26-2016, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 12:00 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 06:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 05:41 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-25-2016, 04:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Democrats become Republicans, there isn't must point in electing them. Compromise can be wise, but it has its limits.

If health care affordability is a concern, is there any chance that some rural voters will understand that the answer is more socialism, not less? Red state Senate Democrats killed the public option in 2009; would that have made a difference?

So people who are economically liberal but are against abortion are not real Democrats?

Democrats can't abandon women's concern for control of their reproduction. However, I believe compromise is possible on this issue. The problem is one of heat rather than light.

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...

It's too bad we are hung up on these culture wars issues, when they can be solved and it's time to move on. But the two sides seem to be dug in, and it is like a religion to each side.

As usual Eric you're oblivious. The only ones interested in still fighting 3T culture war issues are Boomers. Everyone else has moved on a long time ago. One of the reasons (but by no means the main one--the two main ones obviously is the American distain for dynasties and of course her rampant and obvious corruption) HRC lost and Trump won is because she's post seasonal. While Obama is likely pre-seasonal, as he attempted to govern like a Truman or Eisenhower instead of an FDR or Lincoln, McCain was also post-seasonal (and his VP pick was terrible) and Romney was just plain smarmy.

[pbrower2a]

Boomers are not in need of abortions anymore. They are more concerned about retirement and Medicare.

Donald Trump is seasonal -- if one wants a Crisis Era to go so badly that it will culminate in a violent revolution like one you probably expected to celebrate the centennial of next year.

Donald Trump is stupid enough to believe that the common man can live without a consumer society and not be amenable to Marxist propaganda. make America Great Again -- as perhaps in the 1920s? Sure -- when white ethnics were almost all very poor.

Dynasties? Given the choice between either the Windsor or Borbon y las dos Sicilias dynasty or an all-American fascism, I'd take the royalty any day. But if things go bad enough and the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have to choose between committing war crimes on behalf of the President and a stooge Congress... I might find a coup acceptable so long as the junta gives clear and unambiguous promises to restore democracy with free elections and a promise of a Constitutional Convention.

[Galen]

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

Pretty much sums up one of the major issues with the Democrats.

One of the things I always liked about the red necks is that unless you are messing with them they are perfectly content to leave you alone.  Liberals and progressives appear to be genetically incapable of leaving people alone.  The open hostility they have to, among other things, Christianity is one of the the reasons Hillary lost.  Say what you like about Trump, he is not openly hostile to Christianity.

[Galen]

(12-03-2016, 04:56 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 03:57 AM)Galen Wrote:

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

Pretty much sums up one of the major issues with the Democrats.

One of the things I always liked about the red necks is that unless you are messing with them they are perfectly content to leave you along.  Liberals and progressives appear to be genetically incapable of leaving people alone.  The open hostility they have to, among other things, Christianity is one of the the reasons Hillary lost.  Say what you like about Trump, he is not openly hostile to Christianity.

Well their politicians oppose abortion for one and want to apply that to everyone. There are others of course but that is one in particular that affects someone in a personal way and on top of it I hear they want to force them to cremate or bury the body. I would consider that a sign that they cannot leave people alone regarding their morality being pushed onto another. Does it apply to individuals who vote right wing? No. Same as left wing. Does not apply to all. But their leaders are both guilty of this. You have said so yourself to me. Neither side gets out of this scot free.

You know there are libertarians that have a problem with abortion as well?  Harry Browne comes to mind, now that I think of it.  I suggest that you read about the various libertarian perspectives on the subject.  You might want to listen to Stefan Molyneux talk about the subject might help you understand why I don't consider the Christian position on the subject as an a priori reason to be hostile to red necks.





In the final analysis red necks tend to be far less intrusive than liberals and progressives.

[Galen]

(12-03-2016, 05:27 AM)taramarie Wrote: If it were up to me segregation seems best so to allow people to live their desired way of life the way they want to....but there would be relocation issues so it is not possible. Mere pie in the sky.

You picked a bad example with abortion because of the complexity of the issue and the fact that from a certain point of view a life is involved.  Given the libertarian view on secession, you have to admit that libertarians have a similar view on the solution as you do.  Pity the liberals and progressives will not accept such a solution.  Ironically, the red necks would be perfectly happy with your solution.  There lies the difference between the red necks and the left.

[Galen]

(12-03-2016, 05:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:34 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:27 AM)taramarie Wrote: If it were up to me segregation seems best so to allow people to live their desired way of life the way they want to....but there would be relocation issues so it is not possible. Mere pie in the sky.

You picked a bad example with abortion because of the complexity of the issue and the fact that from a certain point of view a life is involved.  Given the libertarian view on secession, you have to admit that libertarians have a similar view on the solution as you do.  Pity the liberals and progressives will not accept such a solution.  Ironically, the red necks would be perfectly happy with your solution.  There lies the difference between the red necks and the left.

A life is at stake either way due to if it is banned a woman who is desperate to have the abortion will find other methods like underground methods or knitting needle. I am sure you are aware how dangerous that is. It is just what will happen unfortunately. Cannot stop that. But can make it safer methods and even preventative methods.

Either way a life is at risk. So I do not think it was a bad example. As for culturally concerned conservatives being happy with the solution I will have to believe that to see it. One on one basis too. Aaaanyway time for kiwis to hop to bed. Will be back in a few hours to see how this conversation has progressed. Interesting topic.

This is why libertarians on the whole tend not to want to impose a solution from above the way liberals and progressives do.  With the degree of centralization that exists in the US there is a tendency to use the Federal Government as a club to beat opponents over the head with.  You haven't really spent much time around the red necks in the US and the mainstream media is less than reliable.

[Kinser79]

(12-03-2016, 05:54 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:42 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:34 AM)Galen Wrote:

(12-03-2016, 05:27 AM)taramarie Wrote: If it were up to me segregation seems best so to allow people to live their desired way of life the way they want to....but there would be relocation issues so it is not possible. Mere pie in the sky.

You picked a bad example with abortion because of the complexity of the issue and the fact that from a certain point of view a life is involved.  Given the libertarian view on secession, you have to admit that libertarians have a similar view on the solution as you do.  Pity the liberals and progressives will not accept such a solution.  Ironically, the red necks would be perfectly happy with your solution.  There lies the difference between the red necks and the left.

A life is at stake either way due to if it is banned a woman who is desperate to have the abortion will find other methods like underground methods or knitting needle. I am sure you are aware how dangerous that is. It is just what will happen unfortunately. Cannot stop that. But can make it safer methods and even preventative methods.

Either way a life is at risk. So I do not think it was a bad example. As for culturally concerned conservatives being happy with the solution I will have to believe that to see it. One on one basis too. Aaaanyway time for kiwis to hop to bed. Will be back in a few hours to see how this conversation has progressed. Interesting topic.

This is why libertarians on the whole tend not to want to impose a solution from above the way liberals and progressives do.  With the degree of centralization that exists in the US there is a tendency to use the Federal Government as a club to beat opponents over the head with.  You haven't really spent much time around the red necks in the US and the mainstream media is less than reliable.

And here we come to the crux of the 4T again. Over centralization of the governmental powers at the federal level in the US.

As to abortion I still consider its legality a necessary evil rather than a positive good. Myself I'd prefer to limit them as much as possible through a combination of economic growth, promotion of the heterosexual family unit, and liberalization of adoption procedures.

@Tara,

I strongly suggest that you check out the US's alternative media as well as the mainstream media. Indeed you'll find more truth with the alternatives. As to dealing with the red necks, the sad fact is that the MSM has a narrative about them, an untrue narrative.

[Bob Butler 54]

(12-03-2016, 05:54 AM)Galen Wrote: This is why libertarians on the whole tend not to want to impose a solution from above the way liberals and progressives do.  With the degree of centralization that exists in the US there is a tendency to use the Federal Government as a club to beat opponents over the head with.  You haven't really spent much time around the red necks in the US and the mainstream media is less than reliable.

Perhaps not the true libertarians -- there are still true libertarians outside of message boards? -- but the red rural population has its agendas.  The "Christians" don't like women's health care, and many don't approve of gun prohibition.  There is a current uptick in racial incidents reflecting the real meaning of being against political correctness.  The red population in general is ticked at the blue population, with reason, but they seem more interested in revenge than coexistence.  We'll see whether or not they use the Federal Government as a club.  Too soon to say.

While my greatest concern is the damage another round of borrow and spend trickle down could do with the economy, I don't see the culture war issues as settled, and four or eight years of one culture going after the other isn't apt to do anything but rally the victim culture to get angry at and overthrow the aggressor culture.  That the shoe is on the other foot matters little in terms of the health and stability of the country.  As long as both cultures are dumping on one another there are going to be problems.