Jon Tester on why Dems keep losing rural states

[Professor Emeritus]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I didn't see any particular large activation of Texas young and Latino voters attributed to her above and beyond the expected during the last election, despite her involvement. I don't think she'd change anything in states like Montana either.

Oh, I very much doubt there is much effect either way in an election such as the last one. A junior congresswoman on the other side of the country who isn't even closely aligned or heavily campaigning for the candidate in question is not going to move the needle much either way. Those who came in to say otherwise were just fearmongering.

But in the primaries, when she was campaigning for Bernie and appeared much more closely aligned to him? I would think that she likely had at least a small impact in how positively young and Latino voters turned out for him, at least compared to a normal primary when both of those constituencies often barely register. As opposed to Pelosi, who I have trouble seeing moving the needle for any candidate beyond backroom plotting.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Most these conversations don't operate under the assumption that these people are happily voting for Republicans and it isn't because they've delivered on policy.

Probably because people wanted to have a meaningful conversation about the people who can be moved rather than a useless one about the ones who can't.

As @FAH1223 quoted early on, in 2008 you saw Obama get 40+% of the vote in much of rural America, far better than Biden just did. He won Indiana. He won Iowa by 10%!!! Won Maine by almost 20%. Only lost Montana by 2%. Only lost Missouri by 0.14%. Even came within 8% in North Dakota and within 13% in West Virginia (Biden lost those two by 33% and 39%). In 2008 and 2012 we had Democratic senators winning races in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Iowa, Arkansas, Alaska, West Virginia, and Missouri.

So talking like there's no chance of doing better in those areas is ridiculous. We've done better in very recent history. We don't have to worry about the 70-80% of most immovable Republicans. We're only concerned with the rural dems that aren't voting, the rural independents that aren't voting, the rural independents that can be swayed, and the moderate repubs that can be swayed. It's not a question of "if", cause it's been done in very recent history even with imperfect campaigns and imperfect candidates. The question is how, and whether we're willing.

 

[Gains]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I didn't see any particular large activation of Texas young and Latino voters attributed to her above and beyond the expected during the last election, despite her involvement. I don't think she'd change anything in states like Montana either.

conservative latinos loathe aoc

 

[mastermind]

I'm here to say on post #40....maybe the Dems need to think a lot less about how they campaign and a lot more about actually solving rural issues?

Corporate agriculture has fukked over rural families and rural communities for generations, it keeps getting worse, and they hold rural governments and populace hostage and tell them its their way or the highway. And the Democrats have HELPED that happen, the corporate takeover of rural America has been completely bipartisan. If Democrats can actually stand up for the family farmer and other rural small businessmen and stop kissing corporate ass they would have a chance of saving rural communities, and then that would be some kick-ass shyt to run on in the rural races.

But of course, Biden just appointed a corporate lobbyist to head the Department of Agriculture yet again....

When centrists talk about progressive politics, they don’t look past the cities. You can do progressive politics in rural areas. Getting big agriculture out of rural farm lands is a start.

 

[acri1]

Just saw a poll that showed that AOC and Pelosi were neck-and-neck among white no-college voters in battleground states. Which is almost certainly AOC's worst constituency.

At least AOC brings something to the table in places like Montana. She's gonna energize young people, progressives, Latinos (who are a significant % in almost every rural area nowadays). Meanwhile the Democrat leadership is attractive to....who exactly?

Low-info folk called corporate dems like Obama and Clinton socialist and believed it with all their hearts, having AOC up there doesn't change anything. Look at how Bernie was actually more popular in rural areas while leading with socialism front and center. If you can actually promote policies that will help these people's lives and sell it well to them, enough of the moderates won't give a fukk what name you put on it. You'll win some of those states.

And I don't want to hear, "But the democrats have been promoting polices that would help them!" The lives of rural people in the USA have been doing downhill for 30-40 years. They're dominated by shrinking populations, losing family farms, losing small businesses, opium epidemic, etc. no matter who was in charge. Dems being somewhat better on social programs than Republicans are isn't what those communities need, they need a fundamental change in how the Department of Agriculture and federal government in general serves corporations first and people second.

I don't disagree that Dems could do better on policy, but it seems like you're kind of ignoring the elephant in the room.

Things just aren't the same as they were in 2008. The alt-right/tea party stuff blew up after Obama got elected and only got worse with Trump. Unfortunately I think Republican voters (rural and otherwise) are generally more motivated by cultural issues/racial resentment than they were back before the alt-right went mainstream. A lot of voters you might have been able to sway in 2008 have been absorbed into the Trump cult by now. So as much as I think Dems should rethink their policies and how they affect rural voters, I'm skeptical that this would translate into votes.

 

[ZoeGod]

Thats basically it. Its to cut margins. Why has the blue wall in the midwest gone so close in 2016 and now in 2020? Because of the erosion of the rural vote. The votes matter because it matters in state elections. This is why the GOP has such a tight grip on the state level since 2010. And this matters because gerrymandering, voter suppression which helps them in the federal level. And this benefits Republicans to control the senate. @FAH1223 posted an article in another thread discussing why losing the rural vote isn't a good thing. Its not to win the majority but to get back to the 2008 Obama numbers to get a semblance of a supermajority again. That is the only way Dems would be able to effectively govern. Any future GOP control of Congress will just mean obstruction of future Democratic administrations:

The overwhelming response of Democrats to this runaway drop in rural support has been plain disinterest. We’ll make up the difference in cities or suburbs, they say again and again. Even if that six of one, half dozen of the other approach was working (and there’s plenty of evidence that it is not), it is brutally ignorant of the reality of the American political system.

Rural voters are inordinately powerful, as we (should) all know by now, a by-product of the anti-democratic makeup of the Senate, the nature of districting in the House, and to some degree, the structure of the Electoral College. One rural vote is not equivalent to one suburban vote. That has never been the exchange rate of American politics, and with every passing year, rural votes amass more and more influence. By the time Joe Biden is up for re-election, after another round of redistricting, rural votes will be more commanding still.

The inequality in that structure of American democracy happens to be the linchpin of Republican minority rule: They know well that the power of a rural voter is stronger than that of an urban or suburban one. They’ve been perfectly content to watch Democrats run up the score with empty vote share in California, knowing full well that their strength in rural areas means they can maintain conceivable majorities with just 45 percent total haul, so long as they maintain that crucial rural support. “If Democrats keep letting people fail upwards like this, they will never stop the bleeding. By 2040, the more rural half of this country could control 84 Senate seats. How does permanent majority leader status for the head of the Senate Republicans sound to you?” asked Goehl.

A Democratic Party With Tom Vilsack at Ag Is Not Serious About Winning Elections

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I don't disagree that Dems could do better on policy, but it seems like you're kind of ignoring the elephant in the room.

Things just aren't the same as they were in 2008. The alt-right/tea party stuff blew up after Obama got elected and only got worse with Trump. Unfortunately I think Republican voters (rural and otherwise) are generally more motivated by cultural issues/racial resentment than they were back before the alt-right went mainstream. A lot of voters you might have been able to sway in 2008 have been absorbed into the Trump cult by now. So as much as I think Dems should rethink their policies and how they affect rural voters, I'm skeptical that this would translate into votes.

We can assume that everything is inevitable and we can't change shyt. Or we can assume that at least some white rural voters are party-fluid and wouldn't have been so susceptible to resentment politics if the Democrats hadn't been absolutely ass on rural policy for the previous 40 years.

I don't see the utility in making the, "Nothing we can do" assumptions.

In 2012 the Republicans had been running racial resentment narratives against Obama for 4 straight years. In 2012 the Tea Party was at their peak. In 2012 Obama had just made one of the biggest missteps in recent history with that whole "They cling to guns, they cling to religion" line that completely alienated rural voters.

And DESPITE all that, Obama still won Iowa by 6%. Joe Donnelly still won a senate seat in Indiana. Claire McCaskill still won a senate seat in Missouri. Jon Tester still won a senate seat in Montana. Heidi Heitkamp still won a senate seat in North Dakota. Sherrod Brown still won a senate seat in Ohio. And Joe Manchin of course was still doing his thing in West Virginia. Plus Democratic governors won in Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia.

Even with the racial resentment in full force and Obama totally fukking up his appeal to rural voters like that, Dems still won races in rural states across the country. Of course we can do better than that.

 

[ZoeGod]

I don't disagree that Dems could do better on policy, but it seems like you're kind of ignoring the elephant in the room.

Things just aren't the same as they were in 2008. The alt-right/tea party stuff blew up after Obama got elected and only got worse with Trump. Unfortunately I think Republican voters (rural and otherwise) are generally more motivated by cultural issues/racial resentment than they were back before the alt-right went mainstream. A lot of voters you might have been able to sway in 2008 have been absorbed into the Trump cult by now. So as much as I think Dems should rethink their policies and how they affect rural voters, I'm skeptical that this would translate into votes.

I understand this sentiment but the way our system is set up one rural vote is not the same as one suburban or urban vote. It's worth more unfortunately. We have to cut the margins. This has been the gameplay for the GOP to maintain minority rule. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, controlling the courts and state legislatures= minority rule through the senate. This helps them to have undemocratic control of the senate and this represents as a problem going forward. All this mean future obstruction and the country goes stagnant.

Biden did well this year because of combo of things( "moderate conservatives," historical black voter turnout, wishy washy suburban voters). And even with all of that Dems lose seats in the House. The only state Dems made gains in the state legislative level was in my state NYS. A reliable BLUE state that only in 2018 won both houses in Albany for the first time in 75 years. So there is alot of work to do to make effective change. The biggest goal Dems need to do is combat conservative minority rule. Depending on cities and the suburbs alone is not enough. We need some rural votes to cut some margins because the margins in these swing states were really close.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Perry Bacon is dropping dimes

I keep telling you... RED STATE DEMOCRATS know what time it is

Warnock And Ossoff Are Testing A New Strategy For Democrats In The South





Just gems

How A Charles Booker Senate Campaign Could Reshape Kentucky's Democratic Party

 

[JBoy]

y'all should stop using "rural" when you mean rural white folks, some of the blackest communities in our country remain in the rural South, Natives in much of the West are comically democratic and you ain't getting much more rural than places like Pine Ridge or the Navajo nation, and the Southwest has many rural Latino Americans who are largely democratic leaning.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

When centrists talk about progressive politics, they don’t look past the cities. You can do progressive politics in rural areas. Getting big agriculture out of rural farm lands is a start.

This

The small government tag by republicans has won over "rural" voters for many years. They think since they arent in densely populated areas that republicans are better for them. Progressive/liberal policies are often tied to densely populated areas. I wonder where progressive policies have worked in the past in less populated areas? Maybe Bernie would know

 

[Professor Emeritus]

y'all should stop using "rural" when you mean rural white folks, some of the blackest communities in our country remain in the rural South, Natives in much of the West are comically democratic and you ain't getting much more rural than places like Pine Ridge or the Navajo nation, and the Southwest has many rural Latino Americans who are largely democratic leaning.

I agree. Like I said earlier, a lot of rural areas have heavy Latino representation too. If we make better rural policy we'll make the greatest positive difference in rural Black lives cause they have the furthest to go to be made whole, then Native American, then Latino, and then White. But we if we want Dems to win in new rural areas then we need to affect at least some White rural folk in a positive way.

 

[mastermind]

y'all should stop using "rural" when you mean rural white folks, some of the blackest communities in our country remain in the rural South, Natives in much of the West are comically democratic and you ain't getting much more rural than places like Pine Ridge or the Navajo nation, and the Southwest has many rural Latino Americans who are largely democratic leaning.

A lot of black people in the south do not vote.

 

[88m3]

A lot of black people in the south do not vote.

started your day shytting on black folks in Brooklyn and now I guess it's the souths turn

 

[JBoy]

A lot of black people in the south do not vote.

i'm from the rural south, I'm very aware of this

But we if we want Dems to win in new rural areas then we need to affect at least some White rural folk in a positive way.

might be blunt but the party wastes too much time trying to chase this mythical come on home white rural voter IMO, these types are love drunk on the GOP and it's good ol boy image, the Democrats are bluntly too intellectual and diverse for many of these types.