For those who think Democrats should abandon rural America

[IrateCitizen]

A short list of some of the champions of liberalism that came from rural states:

William Jennings Bryan (Nebraska), 1896 Democratic Presidential Nominee and Populist leader
Eugene V. Debs (Indiana), socialist leader and activist
George McGovern (ND), US Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Nominee
Hubert H. Humphrey (MN), US Senator and 1968 Democratic Presidential Nominee
Eugene McCarthy (MN), US Senator
Frank Church (ID), US Senator
Paul Wellstone (MN), US Senator
Paul Simon (IL), US Senator


For those out there who think that the "heartland" is purely conservative, I present this as historical proof that it is NOT -- that most of all, it requires support of the Democratic Party to address the very real concerns of rural areas that are struggling just to stay above water, rather than "tweaking" of image to try and capture them without substance.

Any thoughts?

[jonoboy]

1. it's odd this

that rural or country voters are perceived as 'conservative' when it seems pretty obvious to me that the Democratic party would be far more in tune with the needs of the majority of them who are not the landed gentry.
The Dems should do as the Labour Party in Australia has done..a special section of the party concentrating on securing the country vote. It's working and it requires educating them that it's the Democrats who really have their best interests at heart, not the corporate loving Republicans.

[JackRiddler]

48. very good idea

k

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Rural? Illinois and Minn. have some very large cities

I'm not sure what your criteria is but I would hesitate to call those 2 states rural, especially being part of the industrial north.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Illinois certainly does, but not as much with MN...

Plus, outside of Chicago, IL is midwestern farm country. And when Paul Wellstone won his two Senate bids, he captured a large base of support from the rural farmers that he had gotten arrested for in the protest of bank foreclosures on their land.

Say what you want about rural people, but having grown up in a rural area, they NEVER forget when someone is willing to go to bat and stick up for them. NEVER.

[MuseRider]

12. They NEVER forget

is exactly right, it is part of what we discussed yesterday. Get them started voting as Democrats, don't ignore them and we could have them for a long while.

[NicoleM]

6. Have you ever been to Minnesota?

There is one part of a very large state that is urban. There is a whole lot of the state that is as rural as rural gets. I know, because I live in rural Minnesota.

[Padraig18]

7. Not rural?

Except for Chicago and the 'collar counties', IL is prototypically rural, and agriculture is THE #1 industry in the state, far outpacing anything else...

[AntiLempa]

36. Illinois is predominantly rural

I'm an Illinoisan that was born in an immediate suburb of Chicago and now reside in Central Illinois. Our state is predominantly rural, and there is a lot of resentment for Chicago. The rest of the state is often ovrlooked and ignored. Republicans realize this and take advantage of it. Democrats that run as populists are often very successful. Paul Simon and Glen Poshard immediately come to mind.

Illinois is much more than Chicago. . .

[Brian Sweat]

4. If Bryan were alive today, he would be a Republican.

[IrateCitizen]

8. Why? Because he was a social conservative?

It was 1896. The VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICA was staunchly socially conservative. It was the Victorian era, after all! :eyes:

Personally, when it comes to issues of putting people first and fostering a sense of community among us, I think that the Democratic Party could learn a thing or two from looking at the examples of people like William Jennings Bryan.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. I don't think he was a social conservative either

He was a feminist. Read my previous post to the poster you are responding to.

[IrateCitizen]

58. From an online biography I found in a quick Yahoo search

Bryan was a political evangelist. Often ahead of his time as a spokesman for liberal causes, he was also closely identified with traditionalism, particularly with fundamentalist Christianity. In 1924 he drafted legislation to prevent the teaching of Darwinist evolutionary theory in Florida's public schools, and in 1925 he served as a prosecution lawyer in the Scopes Trial, a Tennessee case involving a similar law. Taking the stand in defense of the Bible's authority, Bryan was subjected to a devastating cross-examination by the defense attorney, Clarence Darrow. Bryan won the case, but he died less than a week later, on July 26, 1925.

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/bryan.html

[Classical_Liberal]

62. That is a very general biography

I wish I could find the much better one PFAW did on this topic. He would think Falwell and Robertson were nutjobs. He wasn't as fundy as them.

[WoodrowFan]

52. Not a chance!!!!

Bryan was to much a supporter of the "little guy" against big business to EVER be a republican.

from his famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the 1896 Democratic Convention.....

Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between "the idle holders of idle capital" and "the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country;" and, my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side will the Democratic party fight; upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses?" That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.

"Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." (God, I love that speech!}

[Classical_Liberal]

55. Not necessarily

He was a feminist, and he was only opposed to evolutionary theory when it came to humans. I think he was just ignorant of evolutionary theory as were most people at the time. It hadn't been around long, and the rich were using it to support social darwinism.

[IrateCitizen]

59. He was against it because he was a fundamentalist Christian

He was the prosecuting attorney in the Scopes Monkey Trial as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

64. He was a Presbyterian

hardly any of whom would fall in the category today. The Anglicans initially rejected it too. He opposed it because of ignorance and because many rich people were perverting the theory into social darwinism and he thought this perversion was what evolutionary theory was. I know he prosecuted it. It doesn't change his motivations for opposing it. There is room for compromise with liberal christians, since he was a liberal, if uninformed christian.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. Bryan and social darwinism

much better article here

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/peopleevents/p_bryan.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande03.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/peopleevents/e_gospel.html

[IrateCitizen]

68. So was I at one time, but you're not disproving my point

An excerpt from the piece you cited:

American fundamentalism and the social gospel are two distinct religious movements. Both began in the early part of the 20th century. Both sprang from Christianity's attempt to deal with modern problems. Yet they had radically different goals. As politician and religious leader, William Jennings Bryan played a prominent role in both movements.

And another, from the link to a piece on Bryan's life from the same original link -- describing the scene at the Scopes trial:

Snapping his suspenders, jabbing his finger at Bryan, Darrow peppered Bryan with questions: "When exactly was the earth created? How many days did it take? Where did Cain get his wife?" The judge tried to stop the grilling, but Bryan pounded his fist, refusing to step down: "I am simply trying to protect the word of God against the greatest atheist or agnostic in the United States!"

Personally, I don't even know why we're arguing these points, because we're still both in agreement that Bryan would have been a Democrat were he alive today. :shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

71. I was trying to support your point actually

Frankly if dems think they must become social conservatives to win ANY rural states, your thesis that we should try to do that won't wash.

Also from the articles posted.

As a young man, Bryan had been open-minded about the origins of man. But over the years he became convinced that Darwin's theory was responsible for much that was wrong with the modern world. "The Darwinian theory represents man as reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate," Bryan said, "Evolution is the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak." He believed that the Bible countered this merciless law with "the law of love."

also

The social gospel grew out of the abuses of industrialism. By the turn of the twentieth century American cities had become magnets for cheap labor. Poverty bred a new kind of hopelessness. Wealthy captains of industry, like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, were seen as indifferent to the sufferings of the poor. Some of the rich were philanthropists, but others justified their cruelty with a philosophy called Social Darwinism. If evolution favors the survival of the fittest, they argued, why should the strong help the weak to survive?

The social gospel arose to combat this bleak landscape. Historian Paul Boyer says, "many Christians came to believe that through reform efforts, through reform legislation dealing with child labor, with slums and tenement houses and unsafe working conditions, human beings really could build the Kingdom of God on earth." This belief informed the early progressive movement. William Jennings Bryan carried this idea into his three presidential campaigns.

[Padraig18]

5. One of those 'myths' is that rural America is conservative/RW. n/t

[boxster]

11. Rural America IS conservative, especially rural middle America.

Nebraska went to 63/33 Bush to Gore.
SD - 60/38
ND - 61/33
KS - 58/37

Doesn't get much more conservative than that.

[Padraig18]

13. Equally true is that...

Illinois went solidly for Clinton twice, and Gore once. MO and IA were both extremely close, and the 3 states combined have a vastly greater population than NE, KS and SD combined. All 3 states are also governed by Democrats.

[boxster]

24. Yes, but the RURAL parts (the topic here) of IL, MO, and IA do NOT vote

for Democrats.

All you have to do is look at the infamous red/blue map by county to see that the cities in those states are what won elections for those Democrats. The rural areas voted overwhelmingly conservative in 2000, as did almost all rural areas in the Midwest and the Great Plains.

[Padraig18]

31. Id' like to see supporting evidence for IL

Since I live here, and happen to know otherwise, I'd like to see evidence for that assertion.

[boxster]

40. Here you go.

http://www.mob-rule.com/counties/electoral.html

Sorry that this map is so incredibly huge, but it's the only copy I could find on short notice.

In Illinois, the blue is primarily limited to urban and suburban areas. Obviously, you don't "happen to know otherwise".

I'm not sure why people are so conflicted about this. This stuff was ALL OVER the news within a few months after the election. It's like everyone has now completely forgotten the countless times the media talked about Gore winning most of the major metropolitan areas and Bush winning nearly everything rural.

Even Missouri, which went 50/47 to Bush, is almost solidly red, except for the cities. Obviously, it was only that close because Gore did so well in the cities.

[Padraig18]

42. Hmmm...

IL only 'has' one urban area; we have 2 cities besides Chicago that are over 100K population. All the rest of that blue in IL is spread out pretty well, and I'd ask you to note how many 'marginal' Repuke counties there are; additionally, lots of the red/orange counties are counties that are, on the county level, either split or controlled by Democrats.

Rural America is not averse to supporting Democrats, when Democrats give them a reason to do so. Look at Gov. Blagoevic, e.g.--- city boy who won the nod because he courted rural votes. .

[boxster]

46. Illinois has six metro areas, according to the Census Bureau.

A "metropolitan area" is defined by the Census Bureau as..."at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants."

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html

Illinois has six of them. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the six were six of the blue areas on that map.

And, so what? Chicago has a large portion of the state's population. If Chicago goes heavily Democratic, it offsets a huge number of Republican votes in less urban areas.

That's my point. In general, Gore won in cities and Bush won in rural areas. This is very obvious in the county-by-county map for a majority of "rural America".

[Padraig18]

50. The 6

Rockford, Springfield, Peoria, Champaign-Urbana, Decatur and Naperville. All the counties except for Champaign and Macon (C-U and Decatur) are Repuke controlled (and those two are 'split'). There is no direct correlation with the maps blue areas and urbanization, except as noted.

[boxster]

57. You can remain in denial all you want.

The reality is, and this has been very well documented, that in general, urban areas vote Democrat; rural areas vote Republican.

That is so incredibly obvious in that map that I find it difficult to believe that ANYONE can continue to dispute it. All you have to do is LOOK.

Look at the Midwest. Almost all rural, almost all red. The blue in South Dakota is all Native American Reservation counties. North Dakota - same thing.

Look at Nebraska - almost all rural, ALL red.

Even Minnesota - historically liberal, right? All red, except for Mpls/St. Paul, Rochester, Duluth, and a couple of other minor metro areas.

Iowa - the western part of the state is almost exclusively rural. Look, it's all red. Imagine that. The blue in the middle is Des Moines.

Look at the South. Much of the heaviest blue is along major rivers. Now where do you suppose the cities are in those areas?

[boxster]

69. Do I even have to do your research for you?

Please.

Cook County - part of Chicago Metro - BLUE
DeKalb County - part of Chicago Metro - BLUE
Champaign County - part of Champaign Metro - BLUE
Macon County - Decatur - BLUE
Madison County - part of St. Louis Metro - BLUE
Peoria County - Peoria - BLUE

Almost all of the other blue counties border these six. I'd say that this is pretty convincing evidence that in general, blue = metro and red = rural, just like much of the rest of the United States.

Next time, how about you post based on more than just a hunch? I don't even live there and I can tell by looking at the map that this is true.

[IrateCitizen]

53. Hmmm. On one hand, you're trying to tell a native Illinoian...

about how politics function in Illinois. On the other hand, you're dismissing others out of hand for daring to talk about what happens in politics in the heartland, because you're from Nebraska, and they just don't know what they're talking about.

Is this irony lost on you? :shrug:

[Padraig18]

60. Apparently it is.

:shrug:

[boxster]

61. Not at all. I said nothing about how politics functions in Illinois.

I provided documented proof that, in general, urban areas vote Democrat and rural areas vote Republican. That has been my consistent point in this entire thread.

Anyone with any sense of geography whatsoever should be able to look at that map and make the same conclusions I did.

I'll make it really simple for everyone. Look at the middle of the country. There aren't very many people there. This is a very rural area. Look, it's all red.

Look at the east and west coasts and along major rivers. That is where the cities are in the United States. Most of them are blue.

Case closed.

[Padraig18]

63. yes, you did.

I asked for evidence of your contention vis a vis Illinois; you provided a link to the map, and restated your hypothesis about IL. I debunked the hypothesis, so now we jump back to overall urban v. rural issues.

If this were a proper debate, about now is when I'd have said "Point of order, moderator".

[boxster]

70. Sorry, but you're still wrong.

Cook County - part of Chicago Metro - BLUE
DeKalb County - part of Chicago Metro - BLUE
Champaign County - part of Champaign Metro - BLUE
Macon County - Decatur - BLUE
Madison County - part of St. Louis Metro - BLUE
Peoria County - Peoria - BLUE

Almost all of the other blue counties border these six. I'd say that this is pretty convincing evidence that in general, blue = metro and red = rural, just like much of the rest of the United States.

All you have to do is actually LOOK at the map, which you obviously didn't. A basic understanding of geography would tell you that cities are mainly on rivers and next to lakes. Look at the map - where's the blue?

[Rich Hunt]

93. Illinois Republicans

Let's not be dishonest here - I know they are the "enemy" and all, but the Illinois Republican Party is not exactly the same Republican Party that you'll find down south, or in some of the other Bible Belt areas.

Glenn Poshard was so conservative, I couldn't bring myself to vote for him.

[boxster]

97. True, the relative political views of both Repubs and Dems vary greatly.

Look at Zell Miller, for example. Or Ben Nelson.

Both have (D) by their names, yet they vote with the Republicans fairly often, especially on important issues.

[Padraig18]

99. The Republican civil war

The party is already in the throes of tearing itself apart; there are many "Chamber of Commerce"/moderate Repukes who have had it with the fundy wingnuts who have been running things, something they proved by electing a moderate, pro-choice woman as party chair after last fall's disastrous experience at the polls.

[Padraig18]

96. That is a Presidential election--period.

It says bupkus about the REAL politics of the counties. I *know* what I'm talking about, when it comes to IL.

[boxster]

103. So, I'm just supposed to accept your word, and my documentation

is meaningless? That's nice. Provide me with some documentation - state elections, state congressional races, etc., - and I'll certainly consider your argument.

But, don't just expect me to accept, "I'm right, dammit, and you're wrong, no matter what you say" because I wouldn't expect the same of you if our roles were reversed.

I looked at the Congressional races outside of the Chicago area (obviously Democratic on the map), as well. The same theory holds up pretty well, with a couple of exceptions. District 19 went to a Democrat, but was heavily expected to. District 12 went to a D, but he was unopposed.

I'm not just making this stuff up. Nowhere did I assert that this data applied at the local level. You could certainly be right in your assertion, but I haven't seen you post anything that counters what I'm saying other than your opinion. Yes, statistics are often faulty, but in this case, they happen to fit the same pattern that fits in a lot of the rest of the country - that is: rural voters tend to vote Republican and urban voters tend to vote Democratic.

And, you're right - my data was in relation to the presidential race. That's because the point I have been trying to make elsewhere in this thread is that we need to focus on states we can win in 2004 to win the general election.

Local and state elections are obviously a different issue, and I have no doubt that the politics are different, as well. All I can post on is what I can justify by the facts I've provided.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. OK, so let's just continue to write off the rural

base, limiting our list of rural to SD, ND & KS as there certainly are no other rural areas in the U.S. other than these three states. And we can continue to insult them and ignore them as we've done in the past. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?"

[boxster]

22. If you'd actually read my post, you'd have noticed that I said,

"especially rural middle America."

NE - 63/33 Bush to Gore.
SD - 60/38
ND - 61/33
KS - 58/37
MT - 58/33
WY - 68/28
OK - 60/38

We're not going to make up 20-40 percentage points in these states, guaranteed. We need to focus on states that we can win.

THAT is my point, not that we should write off ALL rural areas. Please bother to read my posting next time before you post.

Democrats most certainly have not "insulted and ignored" rural areas in the past. Tom Daschle certainly doesn't ignore SD or the rest of the Midwest. He's done more for SD than just about any Democrat who has ever lived. Too bad he gets no credit for it.

[MadHound]

18. Rural America is socially conservative

However when you start talking economics, corporations and farm policy, rural America can be quite liberal and progressive. The Republicans have forced the debate onto issues that are in the social category, abortion, gay rights, gun control, etc. However if the Democrats would hammer home an effective, progressive farm policy that provides real relief to family farmers, rural voters wouldn't care if the candidate was a flaming drag queen doctor providing abortions every day, they would still vote for him. Folks, they are that desperate for some help and nobody is giving it to them. Sure, both sides mouth the same old tired platitudes, but no meaningful change is instituted.

Farm policy and rural voters are not something that we can continue to let slide. We are already seeing the drawbacks of corporate farms and what they are doing to our food supply and enviroment. If we continue to let this slide, soon you and I will be paying outrageous prices for tainted food that isn't fit for a dog. Because with all corporate farms, that will be the only quality of food that we can get.

[NicoleM]

19. North Dakota also has

two Democratic Senators and a Democratic Representative.

[stevedeshazer]

39. Not all rural states are solid red

We have a Democratic governor, one of two Senators is a Dem, and four of five congressional reps are Dems.

Check out what Marcy Westerling of the Rural Organizing Project is doing the rural parts of our state, where I grew up. She is doing it the right way, from the bottom up, and it's great stuff!

"For over two decades, Marcy Westerling has been a leader in advancing democracy and progressive values in rural communities. A driving force behind the Rural Organizing Project, Westerling has helped organize "human dignity groups" in over 52 rural communities and small towns in Oregon. In the tradition of the small town church or town hall, the human dignity group provides a forum for people to engage in face-to-face progressive political discussion. This network is ROP’s key leadership tool. ROP has built strong bridges to Oregon’s farmworkers union, the state’s immigrant rights coalition and other organizations. While there have always been courageous rural activists willing to speak out, ROP has woven an organizational structure, available to all Oregonians, that gives powerful voice to progressive rural citizens."

http://leadershipforchange.org/finalists/finalist.php3?ID=127

http://rop.org/index.htm

[boxster]

41. No, but many of them are very close, including Oregon!

http://www.mob-rule.com/counties/electoral.html

(Sorry, the map is absolutely huge - it's the only copy I could find on short notice.)

Look at ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, WY, MT. Most of the blue areas are either Reservations (90%+ Democrats) or cities.

In fact, look at Oregon!! Most of the rural counties are SOLIDLY red.

[stevedeshazer]

49. Those rural counties are huge

Many in the southern and eastern parts of the state, however they're very sparsely populated.

Nevertheless, in a general election, winner takes all, so it seems to me that we should be doing what Marcy is doing instead of reading maps and wringing our hands and giving up on the good people who happen to live in rural areas. They get no other information but some TV and right-wing radio, unlike metropolitan areas.

Cool map, though. :-)

[boxster]

74. No, that wasn't my point.

Here's my point:

In general, rural areas vote Republican.
In general, urban areas vote Democrat.

This is shown quite well on that map. The reason I brought up Oregon is because the previous poster used it as an example. I then used it as an example to show why I believed that the above statements were true.

I am not advocating ignoring rural areas.

I am not advocating cutting them off.

What I am saying is that states like Nebraska are a lost cause, no matter what we do. Bush won by 30% in 2000. Nebraska's 3 electoral votes are not worth the monumental effort it would take to win here in the general election in '04. No matter how much time and money are spent here, Bush will win Nebraska.

Oh, by the way - rural areas have entered the 21st Century along with the rest of us. Almost everyone has access to the internet and even remotely rural areas are now getting access to the internet via at least DSL service. Plus, satellite service is available almost anywhere on Earth.

[Padraig18]

21. Count the *electoral votes*, not the land mass. n/t

[boxster]

26. EXACTLY. Don't waste time on lost cause states with few electoral votes!

eom

[MadHound]

32. Don't consider it "wasting time"

Spoken like a true urbanite/suburbanite, sheesh!

First off, if Gore had a realistic progressive farm policy he would have won one of those "lost cause state" you sneeringly dismiss. This means that the Florida debacle wouldn't have mattered one whit.

Second, it just isn't about votes. Where the hell do you think your food comes from? Are you a little nervous about the reports of tainted meat being recalled, and Mad Cow popping up here and there? Disgusted with the pollution floating your way downstream? You can thank your heartlees corporate farms for that. And realize that if the best stewards of the land, the family farmers, are driven off of that land, you are going to have a lot more to worry about than spotty reports of E-coli and Mad Cow. Do you want to see your meat prices go up by a factor of ten? Don't you get it, corporate farms are doing to family farms what Wal Mart is doing to small business. Coming in and setting up shop with no regards to the enviromental impact, ruthlessly undercutting the family farmer(often at a loss at first, but they, like WalMart, can afford to take that loss), and then once they have driven all competitors from the field, jacking prices through the roof. Why do you suppose milk prices have started jumping? Why do you think your beef prices are going up? Sheesh, some people think that food grows in the grocery store.

This is a crisis that just isn't political. It is one that effects us at the most basic survival level, what we eat. And if we wish to continue the slide in farm policy, then rest assured, we will all be paying a drastic price later.

[boxster]

43. You're 100% wrong. I grew up in South Dakota and live in Nebraska.

So, please knock off the arrogant, condescending bullshit, especially when you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

http://www.mob-rule.com/counties/electoral.html

Look at this map and tell me we have a chance in hell of taking ND, SD, NE, KS, or OK. Most of the blue is either cities or Native American Reservations.

"Where the hell do you think your food comes from?"
"Sheesh, some people think that food grows in the grocery store."

Again, thanks for the condescending attitude. I grew up in a town of 1500 people that ate, drank, and slept farming, so don't talk to me about where my food comes from.

In fact, I'm curious. Have you ever farmed in your entire life or are you just spouting this crap assuming I'm an elitist snob in some big city?

[MadHound]

67. Gee, let's see here

I live on, work on, and own one farm, my sister and I work on, raise crops, and maintain the family farm. Is that enough dirt under the fingernails for you, or do I have to hand milk a cow or two(sorry, that'll have to wait until next spring when I get some cows)? My father raised crops on the family farm(along with being head of vo-ag and FFA for the school district), as did my grandfather and so on. Of course I can only work my farm part time(part time being mornings, evenings, nights and weekends), due to shitty crop prices. I have to go work a "real job" 9-5 to make the ends meet.

And I wouldn't be so condesending towards you if you would only use the common sense and decency that the good Lord gave you. Instead here you are condemning a whole group of people out of hand for what you percieve as some grievous injustice(oh heavens, rural folk are social conservatives). If you would stop being so damn defeatist, and look further than that '00 PRESIDENTIAL map, you would realize that rural states elect Democratic Senators, House Reps, Govenors etc. etc. And before '00 rural states (gasp) they helped elect Democratic Presidents. Why? Because these candidates offered realistic farm policy programs that gave real relief to the farmers. Like I said earlier, rural voters are willing to overlook social liberals if the candidate has and backs up realistic farm policy that will protect them from the predatory practices of corporate farms. And gee, if this had happened in '00, Gore could have picked up one or two of those rural farm states(like oh say, Missouri, with it's twelve electoral votes) and the Florida debacle wouldn't have mattered. But noooo, the Democratic strategists had the same damn defeatist attitude you do and blew it. Gee, thanks, we got Bushco instead.

And I also see that you didn't address my point about how farm policy isn't just a matter of politics. Its a matter of our survival, literally a bread and butter issue. Do you really want shit in your meat, and your bread GMed to kill bugs(and God knows what else)?
This is the shotgun barrel we as a society are staring down if corporate farms continue their predatory ways. And when corporate farms finally drive the last of the family farms off of the land will you be able to afford their exhorbitant prices that they'll charge? I certainly can't. But then again, I'll be down on the farm raising crops for myself and my family. What will you do?

[boxster]

78. Hey, you're the one that basically called me an elitist snob.

So, I wouldn't be too quick to jump on me about questioning your agricultural background. I grew up in a state that has nothing much other than farming and tourism for industries, so believe me, I am well aware of the plight of the family farmer. I know more friends and relatives who went bankrupt from farming than I can count.

And, where did I EVER say anything negative about family farming? You act like I blasted your livelihood when I did nothing of the sort. I think you're jumping to some pretty unrealistic conclusions here, MadHound.

And nowhere did I advocate ignoring rural areas. Nowhere did I comdemn family farmers. Nowhere did I comdemn rural communities.

I'm not a defeatist. I'm a realist. I don't care how much time, money and effort you throw at states like Nebraska and Wyoming - in 2004, they're going to Bush. That's reality. If you think we can swing a 40% loss by Gore in Wyoming in 2000 to a win in 2004, you're hopelessly optimistic. Many "rural" states haven't voted for a Democrat in decades.

I'd rather that we focus on the states we CAN swing and elect a Democrat, because that is certainly more likely to help family farmers and rural communities than leaving Bush in office for 4 more years.

Regarding your example of Missouri, I must point out that in a state with two major cities, KC and St. Louis, rural voters certainly are not, and were not, the only answer to winning the state. As Gephardt has shown, it takes more than the ability to relate to the rural communities to win there.

Again, my point had nothing to do with ignoring rural areas. It has to do with the reality of winning the election in 2004.

The question is: do we want to win in 2004 or not? If we do want to win, why would we want to spend considerable time and effort looking for votes in states where, just like everywhere else, it's winner-take-all, and we have NO CHANCE of winning? Yes, let's just waste time and effort in Nebraska when we could be in Michigan fighting for the same number of electoral votes available in 5 states in the Midwest.

You stated that before 2000, rural states helped elect Democratic presidents. While that is technically true, here is reality:

State Bush/Gore Dole/Clinton Bush/Clinton Bush/Dukakis
Wyoming 68/28 50/37 40/34 61/38
Idaho 67/28 52/34 42/28 62/36
Utah 67/26 54/33 43/25 66/32
Nebraska 63/33 54/35 47/29 60/39
ND 61/33 47/40 44/32 56/43
SD 60/38 46/43 41/37 58/41
KS 58/38 54/36 39/34 56/43

These states, and several others, haven't voted for a Democrat in decades.

Yes, they deserve the attention of the Democrats running for the presidency. Are they going to get it? Unfortunately not.

Ignoring them was never my point. The generalism that rural areas vote Republican and urban areas vote Democratic was.

Frankly, I've never understood why. Growing up, nearly every farmer I knew voted Republican. Many of the states with the highest number of farmers per capita are some of the most conservative states in the country.

You state that Democrats need only let farmers know that they understand their plight and realize that farming is life for so many people. I personally think that Democrats have always been much more receptive and proactive with the family farming community, at least over the past couple of decades. Tom Daschle, while reviled by many on DU, has done more for the farmers in SD and the Midwest than probably any politician alive.

So, why do the majority of farmers still vote Republican? This statement is obviously true, though the Republicans don't seem to have ever done ANYTHING to help family farmers.

Yet, they keep going to the polls in droves in SD, ND, NE, KS, IA, etc., and keep voting Republican every election. So, obviously, there's more to the story than farming issues, and the social issues are likely more important than you give them credit for.

[MadHound]

89. LOL!!

Backpedaling quickly while still taking potshots, not a pretty sight.

Sorry, I tend to get a little snippy when somebody says that I'm "spouting this crap". You were basically tellling me to put up or shut up. Well, I put up, and if you don't like that fact, TS, you asked for it.

And no, you didn't say anything negative about family farming. However your defeatism("lost cause states") and willingness to write off whole blocks of rural residents is a bit irritating, not to mention foolish. You keep spouting off that damn '00 Presidential map like it was mana from heaven, when in reality all that it does is reflect the voters mood for that SINGLE election. Gee, in previous elections we've had such rural states as Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Minnesota voting in the Dem column on a regular basis. Don't go throwing in the towel on all rural voters over a single election. It is foolish and counterproductive.

You also fail to explain why these "lost cause states" continue to vote in Democrats to both state and national seats(remember Daschle, among many others). As I've stated before, it is because these successful Democratic candidates reached out to family farmers with a realistic progressive farm policy that gave those folks real relief. Gee, don't you think that if we did this again in '04 that the Dems might pick up one or two of those "lost causes"? Five electoral votes here, twelve there could very well tip the balance in '04, it certainly would have in '00.

You also fail to address my point that this is not just a matter of politics, but a matter of societal survival. Do you really want to be wondering what disease you're going to catch from your meat in the future? Do you really want to be paying ten-twenty dollars a pound for hamburger? Do you really want to worry whether your child is going to go into anaphelactic shock because they're allergic to that new GM strain of corn? If we don't start addressing these issues now with a sensible, progressive farm policy, well that is going to be the future served on your dining table. Bon appetit! And by writing off these farming states as "lost causes", your defeatism will insure that future comes to pass. 'Pugs certainly aren't going to address this issue, hell they're all in corporate farmers' pockets. It is up to the Dems to address this issue. Hopefully they're not as defeatist as you.

[boxster]

110. Ok, I'll try to address all of your issues this time.

And, yes, "Spouting this crap" wasn't a good choice of words. Sorry about that. Frankly, I was getting a little tired of people assuming I hated farmers and rural voters (never mind that I was born and raised in SD farm country and have lived my entire life in the middle of all those red states) when I was saying nothing that supporter that accusation.

I don't think it is defeatism. I believe it is realism, and I think it is smart campaign strategy. I honestly do not believe that these states can in any meaningful way be considered "in play" in 2004.

NE - 63/33 Bush to Gore.
SD - 60/38
ND - 61/33
KS - 58/37
MT - 58/33
WY - 68/28
OK - 60/38

I'm not saying to just ignore them and forget about their issues. What I am saying is that I think that expecting a decent return on investment in any of those states is incredibly unrealistic. Nebraska, for example, has voted for every Republican since Nixon.

You called this pessimism "foolish" on my part. On the contrary, I believe that spending a great deal of time and effort in these states in the general election is what would be foolish. I just do not believe that the small number of electoral votes in those states is worth the monumental effort it would take to sway 20-40% of voters.

I would much rather see Dems focus on states that we lost by close margins in 2000. Considering we essentially lost the (stolen) electoral vote by one state, there are plenty of possibilities:

Louisiana
Virginia
West Virginia
Arkansas
Tennessee
Arizona
Colorado
Missouri
Ohio
Nevada
Florida
New Hampshire

At the risk of sounding unfeeling (and again being accused of hating farmers and rural voters), why waste significant time, effort, and resources in the election on states that Dems do not have ANY realistic chance of winning?

Frankly, I think that we as a party give too little credit to the Bush cronies for the campaign they ran in 2000 and again in 2002. They understood that some states were no-win and focused on several states that were *relatively* close in previous elections. They won states like Arkansas, Missouri, and New Hampshire, while the Democrats expected those to be narrow wins. We need to keep the states we won and pick up at least a couple of the states in the above list. We win.

we've had such rural states as Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Minnesota voting in the Dem column

Kansas has voted for a Republican in every Presidential race since at least Nixon.

Yes, Iowa, Missouri, and Minnesota are rural states, but they not anywhere near as rural as ND, SD, NE, MT, etc. Dems pick up huge numbers of votes in their urban areas: Des Moines, St. Louis, KC, Mpls/St. Paul, and so on. The county-by-county map of the 2000 Election shows this VERY clearly.

http://www.mob-rule.com/counties/electoral.html

I think we should be winning all three, and I think we CAN win all three in 2004.

Nowhere did I "throw in the towel" on all rural voters, as you suggested. You're failing to make the differentiation between "rural voters" and rural states that we cannot realistically win. I am talking about the latter. You are accusing me of ignoring the former.

Frankly, I can't explain why some of the states in my "lost cause" list vote for Democrats locally and on the state level. It may be that people vote more for the actual person locally and on the state level and vote party line for the Presidency. My experience with voters in SD and NE would see to support that, but I doubt it applies everywhere.

Not all Democrats are equal, either, especially in conservative states. While Nebraska obviously does have a Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson, he is pretty conservative and votes with the Republicans fairly often, especially on important issues. At the same time, Chuck Hagel (a Republican, of course, and very conservative) is criticizing the Bush Administration more than Nelson is. Go figure.

Let's see, I believe that leaves farming = societal survival. Frankly, you made leaps of logic to conclusions that simply weren't there for the intuiting. Nowhere did I say anything negative about family farming. I grew up in South Dakota. Everyone I knew farmed. Most of my friends were sons and daughters of farmers. I know first-hand the effect that failed domestic policy has had on the farming industry and family farmers.

As I have certainly explained before, I do not believe that farmers or rural voters are "lost causes" and nowhere did I say that. What I did say is that expecting the Dem Presidential candidate to win states like Nebraska in 2004 is unrealistic. The "lost causes" I referred to are states like Nebraska where a Democratic presidential candidate is extraordinarily unlikely to prevail.

Even if we assume that it is possible to win there, spending the considerable time, effort, and resources it would take to sway a significant fraction of the voting public in states like this is foolhardy. Those resources should be targeted to states we can realistically win. Bush is going to have much, much more money than the Dem candidate, and we need to spend it as wisely as possible.

When we win back the White House and Congress, we'll be in a much better position to provide farm families, rural communities, and poor people everywhere in the US with the support and assistance they need and deserve. That should be the goal, not spending valuable time and money in states we're not going to win. Trying to be all things to all people is not possible in this election. Only by winning it will we be able to make the kind of changes that you desire.

If that's what you consider a defeatist, then so be it.

[Padraig18]

35. That wasn't my point

My point was that in HUGE portions of rural America, Democrats can do well, but 3 states is not 3 states, electorally. I don't think we should write off ANY rural area, but should target them AGGRESSIVELY--- make some of that red blue in 2004.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. Yes I agree, but not all rural states are lost causes

Look at Wisconsin Minnesota and Iowa. I think we could increase our strength in Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and the Dakotas.

Rural areas that aren't part of the Southern Baptist belt or the Mormon belt can be won, with a populist farm policy.

[boxster]

72. I agree that not all are lost causes. We should win WI, MN, and IA.

But, I do not think that the effort it would take to turn around states like NE, SD, ND, WY, MT, etc., is worth the electoral votes they contain.

For example, Bush won NE by 30% and WY by 40% in 2000 and still has STRONG support in those states. I don't think that the 15 or so electoral votes in the 5 states I listed above are worth the monumental effort it would take to sway enough voters our way.

Let's fight a battle we can win. I'm not saying neglect the rural areas - far from it. What I am saying is that I do not believe that they are worth (electorally) the effort they would require to win.

[Classical_Liberal]

76. Except for Nebraska and SD and ND those states are Mormon belt

Kansas and Missouri, Nebraske and the Dakotas would have pushed us over the top. I don't see how you can say electoral votes aren't worth getting. We aren't going to win Florida with out an armed rebellion, since Florida is part of the Bush monarchy. So we have to win non fundy midwestern states, and border states.

[boxster]

83. I'm afraid you're mistaken re: Nebraska.

Do you know where the Mormons stopped on their way to Utah? That would be Nebraska. A lot of them never left. A lot of their descendents are still here.

Sorry, but there was no way on earth we would have won KS, NE, SD, and ND in 2000. I don't care how much money, time, and effort were spent here, it wasn't going to happen. Bush won each of those states by more than 20%.

State Bush/Gore Dole/Clinton Bush/Clinton Bush/Dukakis
Nebraska 63/33 54/35 47/29 60/39
North Dak 61/33 47/40 44/32 56/43
South Dak 60/38 46/43 41/37 58/41
Kansas 58/38 54/36 39/34 56/43

Electoral votes in these states are very likely unattainable.

That's why we need to fight this fight in states that we lost in 2000 that were CLOSE!

Such as:
Louisiana
Virginia
West Virginia
Arkansas
Tennessee
Arizona
Missouri
Ohio

Any one of those states would have put Gore over the top. Win every state we won in 2000, and add one of those and we win in 2004.

[Classical_Liberal]

84. So they stopped in Iowa too

. What's the difference. I have been to Nebraska and it is no more morman that Iowa. Same ethnic groups and religions as Iowa. Besides all the states you mentioned would also benefit from a rural strategy. So what is your beef. I think nonfundy christians are easier pickins that fundies.

[boxster]

87. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.

You obviously know nothing about Mormons or the Mormon Trail.

Eastern Nebraska was where the Mormons wintered on their way to Utah in the 1840's. They didn't just "stop" here, they lived here, many died here, and many of them stayed here instead of going on to Utah. There is a strong Mormon influence in Omaha. The bridge between Omaha and Council Bluffs (over the Missouri) is called the Mormon Bridge.

Please do some research next time before you make a comment like, (I'm exaggeratedly paraphrasing), "I stopped there once and it ain't Morman (sic)."

Geez.

[Classical_Liberal]

90. The mormon trail ran through southern Iowa too

.http://www.byways.org/browse/byways/2188/

There aren't many mormons here or in Nebraska. It was a trail and most ended up in the basin states, without settling either Nebraska or Iowa.

[boxster]

109. The "basin states"? The Mormon Trail ended in Utah!

Salt Lake City, in fact. They founded it. Everyone was given a plot of land, etc., etc.

I thought everybody knew that.

[Rich Hunt]

92. I lived in Nebraska

There are probably more Mormons there than in the eastern states, but I wouldn't call it a Mormon state. In fact, I didn't know any Mormons when I was there.

If the Mormons had any significant influence on Nebraska, Nebraskans wouldn't get stinking drunk every Friday and Saturday night. They do a lot of drugs out there, too, and they're all chain-smokers.

[Rich Hunt]

44. I used to live in Nebraska

...it seemed that it was difficult to get large sections of the population to come out and vote. I sometimes wonder if the more conservative elements - a lot of whom come from church communities - are just more motivated.

I think if the Democrats had a stronger presence, and made the case for government, you would see more people coming out for the Democrats.

I didn't get the sense that the moral stuff was the big issue with heartlanders - it's more guns and taxes. There are lots of very libertarian-minded people out there (socially speaking). Maybe if these people felt a stronger connection to the federal government, and didn't perceive the Democrats as "east coast", they'd get more support.

[boxster]

9. The key word is "historical".

Sorry, but that's a very short list and with the exception of Wellstone, it has very little to do with the current political reality. All you have to do is look at the statistics for the 2000 election and look at the blue/red map of that election to realize that rural America is very conservative, especially right down the middle - ND, SD, NE, KS, etc.

By the way, McGovern was from SD, not ND.

I grew up in South Dakota and currently live in Nebraska. NE is about as conservative as it gets anywhere. Bush beat Gore here 63/33 in 2000. If I were a Democratic candidate for President, I wouldn't waste much time here, either.

Hell, Clinton didn't even come to Nebraska as President until almost the end of year 8.

[IrateCitizen]

10. I would suggest that you look at this

Such urgency was once the stuff of political legend. In 1896, a 36-year-old Nebraskan named William Jennings Bryan won the Democratic nomination for President with an appeal to farm-state frustration. Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech and his alliance with the independent populists began pulling Midwest and Plains states voters away from Republican moorings some had clung to since Civil War days and toward the Democrats. That process culminated in the election of Franklin Roosevelt, whose New Deal restored a measure of prosperity to Depression-worn farm states. When that prosperity came, the Republicans reasserted themselves. But the recession of the late 1950s wrenched farm-state voters back to the Democratic fold and sent South Dakotan George McGovern, Minnesotan Eugene McCarthy, Idahoan Frank Church and other young liberals to the Senate, where they transformed not just farm policy but the Democratic Party. As recently as 1986, when Democrats retook the Senate six years into the Reagan era, they did so by electing a fresh crop of senators from recession-ravaged farm states that included South Dakota's Tom Daschle, North Dakota's Kent Conrad and, four years later, Minnesota's Paul Wellstone.

As well as this...

"Most of the people who run the Democrat Party, like Terry McAuliffe, they're city people," she says. "They think it's just a matter of tinkering with the party's image." Democratic consultants have created a mini-industry that tells candidates to go "country" by sponsoring NASCAR teams, joining the NRA or fuzzing positions on abortion or gay rights to mollify social conservatives. Rural folks just laugh. "You can be ardently pro-choice and support gay rights and still win rural areas if you have an economic message," says Rhonda Perry, a family farmer who is program director with the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. "I don't think too many people in rural Missouri sit up nights worrying about gay rights. But they do sit up nights worrying about how they are going to keep the farm or how they are going to get health benefits after the meatpacking plant shuts down."

Both of these excerpts are taken from the article, Needed: A Rural Strategy by John Nichols.

[boxster]

16. Unless you live here, you cannot understand...

how conservative it really is. And again, comparing Byran or FDR or McCarthy or McGovern to the current political reality is misguided and frankly, completely irrelevant.

As for the comment from the "rural" Missouri woman, MO is nowhere near as rural or as conservative as ND, SD, NE, KS, MT, or WY.

Missouri went to Bush 50/47 in 2000.

For comparison:
NE - 63/33 Bush to Gore.
SD - 60/38
ND - 61/33
KS - 58/37
MT - 58/33
WY - 68/28

Doesn't get much more conservative than that, and it's extraordinarily unlikely that ANY Democrat can make up 20-40 percentage points in any of these states.

Clinton didn't even VISIT Nebraska as President until his 8th year in office. Even HE lost NE 54/35 in 1996.

Trust me, it's a lost cause. We'd be much better off focusing our attentions on states that we can win. There aren't many electoral votes out here anyway. CA trumps the entire Great Plains in electoral votes by itself.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. This tells me that the Dems need a rural strategy

If the Repiggies are trying to win Minnesota and California, it's only fair that we try to win the Great Plains. :-)

[Le Taz Hot]

23. It's a circular argument

and typical DNC-type thinking. We don't reach out to rural America because they vote Republican because the Democrats have made no attempt to reach out to them and understand their issues. In fact, to REALLY solidify that polarization, we'll not only ignore them but insult them in the process. (That last line didn't apply to you, personally, just to many urbanites in general.)

[boxster]

29. "typical DNC-type thinking" - BS

"typical DNC-type thinking"

Bullshit. It's not DNC-type anything - it's reality, and I wish that people who have no understanding of what "rural America" really is would quit assuming that we can just make an effort out here from a political standpoint and we'll magically change the entire culture.

Democrats most certainly have NEVER ignored rural America.

Tell Tom Daschle that the Democrats have made no attempt to reach out to rural America. Or Tim Johnson. Or Walter Mondale. Or Dick Gephardt.

Some of the states in the Midwest haven't voted for a Democrat in DECADES. This is not some new thing cooked up because of ignorance by the DNC or anyone else.

Please get a clue.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. *I* don't have an understanding of rural America?

Dude/dudette! I'm right in the middle of it. California's Central San Joaquin Valley where most jobs and livelihoods are directly or indirectly ag-related. No, I'm pretty confident I know what I'm talking about.

The "typical DNC-type" thinking goes something like this. "That CD isn't winnable because it's majority Republican so we won't offer a candidate or any of our resources to help change that." Result: Democratic contenders are discouraged from even running as there will be no hope of help from the Big Boys at the DNC.

You denigrate offering outreach and contact with the rural community yet we just did it not 4 weeks ago (recall election and Bustamante). We did it. Let me repeat. We did it. Did Bustamante win? No. Did the recall go through? Yes. BUT in the process we registered literally HUNDREDS of new Democratic voters AND we will continue to keep in contact with those rural communities. Change doesn't happen overnight but persistence WILL pay off. We WILL automatically lose this consituency forever more if we continue using the DNC-style circular argument.

Btw, may I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. "Get a clue" is hardly a productive debate point.

[boxster]

51. I grew up in a town of 1500 people in a state with less than 700,000, so I

think I can speak about rural areas with some confidence, thank you very much. California is not the Midwest. California is not the Great Plains.

And, sorry, but I wouldn't exactly claim that Bustamante's result in the recall as a victory. Registering hundreds of new Democratic voters in a state with a population over 30 million isn't going to make a bit of difference.

Besides, California as a whole, in general, is much, much, MUCH more liberal than anything in the Midwest or the Great Plains. There just is no comparison, and I'm not sure how to get you to understand that.

http://www.mob-rule.com/counties/electoral.html

(sorry, it's a huge map)

Look at ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, WY, MT, etc. The only blue AT ALL in those states is either cities or Native American Reservations.

I don't care how much we "reach out" to voters in those states, we are NOT going to sway 30-40% of the population to vote Democrat no matter what the message is.

And, I am not advocating NOT reaching out to rural America. I am one of the apparent few who still likes Tom Daschle, primarily because he has done more for SD and more for the Midwest than just about any politician alive.

What I am saying is that I don't care how much a Democratic candidate for President campaigns in NE, SD, WY, MT, etc., it is a losing proposition and a waste of time and resources. The electoral votes available in those states are not worth the monumental effort it would take to campaign on a scale large enough to sway MOST of the voters there.

I apologize for my "get a clue" comment. I said it because I just don't believe that most people outside of the Great Plains and the Midwest understand how incredibly conservative it is here. I could be wrong, but many of our fellow posters' comments in this thread haven't yet swayed me from that belief.

[Padraig18]

65. The pointy I think you miss

There are large numbers of votes to be had in states with large rural populations--- states like IL, MO, IN, KY, etc. Not every state with a large rural population is *also* a small state, in terms of votes (like NE< SD, WY, etc.). It would be absurd NOT to reach out to rural America.

[boxster]

73. Show me where I said we shouldn't "reach out to rural America".

Good luck. You're not going to find it.

Certainly, there are large numbers of votes to be had in states like IL, MO, IN, etc. I'm not saying those states are not important. Obviously, they are.

NE, SD, ND, WY, MT, and WY, however, are not worth enough from an electoral standpoint to make the monumental effort it would take to sway 20%-40% of the population to vote for a Democrat. Sorry, but that's reality.

And, my point all along has been this: in general terms, rural voters vote Republican; urban voters vote Democratic. That's incredibly obvious. Nowhere did I equate this to ignoring rural states. The point is - in rural NE, SD, KS, etc., you aren't going to sway enough people for it to matter, no matter what you do.

You can't campaign heavily everywhere, so why not focus on the states that are going to make a difference electorally?

[IrateCitizen]

77. I think you're missing the main point of my initial post

You can't campaign heavily everywhere, so why not focus on the states that are going to make a difference electorally?

This isn't necessarily about "campaigning", especially on the Presidential level. A great part of what I am talking about is to begin to honestly address the problems of rural America, particularly family farmers.

I don't live in a rural area anymore (though I am hoping to move to Ulster Co., NY in a few years), but I spent the first 18 years of my life in "West Pennsyltucky". Not quite the same kind of rural as the plains, but pretty rural nonetheless.

The area I grew up in was never affluent while I was growing up. Far from it. But there was at least a sense of community among the people who lived there, most of whom had been in the general area for generations. Now, when I make trips back home, the area is downright depressed. Except if you get over by my old high school, in which case it is the modern edition of a suburban nightmare.

Why am I bringing this up? Because people in these areas are hurting, that's why. And they're hurting in great deal due to policies that the Democrats have failed them on -- corporate-managed "free trade", enabling of corporate consolidation and expansion that has pushed out local merchants and industry, the rise of agribusiness pushing out family farms.

We shouldn't try to help these people out simply out of fishing for votes. We should try to help them because it is the right thing to do. We should do it because, as Democrats, we should embody the attitude of "we're all in this together" rather than "every man for himself".

And, over time, I would predict that many of these rural folks would come to appreciate it.

[boxster]

86. No, I did understand your initial point, at least in the sense...

that it was meant to focus on the difficulties faced by the "heartland".

I was born, and have lived my entire life, smack dab in the middle of the heartland. Believe me, nothing would make me happier than to see the family farmers and rural communities receive more attention (more serious attention) from Washington. With a few small exceptions, my entire family and most of my friends live in areas and communities where you have two choices coming out of high school - farm or move!

While I do agree that the Democrats haven't done enough to help the true family farmers, I think there's really more to it than that. I think society as a whole has moved to the right and that the "everyone for him/herself" mentality certainly doesn't help the family farmers, as they're pretty much the last group to get attention publicly. Having Republicans in charge of everything certainly doesn't help, either.

From the big picture perspective, the best thing we could do is elect a Democrat to the big chair and regain majorities in at least one branch of Congress, preferably both. Only then do I think it's likely we'll see real help for rural communities and family farmers.

That brings us to my point in most of the other responses and where I digressed from the intent of your thread. I think that we are best served by winning the election in '04. I think that it is futile to expend a lot of time and effort in states where we realisitically have zero chance of success, my current state of residence included.

Unfortunately, that means that states that really should receive the MOST attention aren't going to get much at all. Iowa gets all of the full-court press and it seems as though most of the rest of the Midwest is ignored. To be fair, though, a great deal of the South (also very poor and very economically depressed) is ignored, as well.

As an aside, Daschle gets an incredible amount of criticism on DU and elsewhere for his (lack of) leadership skills. He does not, however, get nearly enough credit for what he has done for South Dakota and the family farming community as a whole. Gephardt, obviously, has also done a lot for the farming community.

Whether either has done enough or is really in the position to do so now is certainly up for debate.

[Classical_Liberal]

79. So what is the difference between Iowa and Nebraska

It is only in the last ten years that Nebraska has become so conseravative and republican, and I think it was because the democrats stopped focusing on rural America. They particularly gave up on the populist appeals of the 80s that elected Harkin and Wellstone. The only thing Tom Daschle has done for South Dakota is molly coddle credit card companies, and attract stupid telemarketing jobs. I think it is antipopulist dlcers like him that have hurt dems on the plains. BTW, I would not focus on the Plains states in 2004. I would focus on Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and West Virgina. I do think we need a long term strategy to bring the non SBC, and non morman belt states back into the fold.

[boxster]

88. Your post is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to start.

First, Nebraska has been conservative for decades.

Nebraska election results:
2000 - Bush/Gore = 62/33
1996 - Dole/Clinton = 54/35
1992 - Bush/Clinton = 47/29
1988 - Bush/Dukakis = 60/39

Republicans do so well in many parts of the state that they've been running unopposed in many state races for decades.

Second, two of South Dakota's largest industries are tourism and farming. The only city with significant telemarketing employment is Sioux Falls, and only because they threw huge tax breaks at corporations to entice them to move to SD.

Third, if Daschle has hurt Democrats so much on the Plains, why does he keep winning? He's been winning elections in a very conservative state for decades.

"So what is the difference between Iowa and Nebraska"

Just because two states border each other does not mean they must be the same politically, if that's what you're suggesting. Colorado and Wyoming border each other and are certainly not similar politically.

For 2004, focus here:

West Virginia
Arkansas
Tennessee
Arizona
Colorado
Missouri
Ohio
Nevada
Florida
New Hampshire

States that we lost, but were close. Win all of the ones we won in 2000, add 1 or 2 of these, and all is well.

[Classical_Liberal]

91. Nobody said anything about focusing on the next election

and that is the problem with the conversation we are having. You are being a Johnny one note. I am saying we need a long term rural strategy and your posts proves it. A democrat was in office throughout the 90s and it didn't change anything, because the dem largely ignored small farmers. Colorado went to Bush so it is pretty similar to Wyoming actually. Also the states you seem to be interested in are all rural. So I don't know what your problem is?

Daschle was one of the guys throwing them the tax breaks, at the telemarketers.

Also 1988 through 2000 hardly charts republican voting through several decades.

[boxster]

95. You just can't admit that you're ever wrong, can you?

"It is only in the last ten years that Nebraska has become so conseravative and republican"

Your quote. 1988 is 15 years ago. Did you fail math?

Frankly, you just don't have a clue what you're talking about, and you just can't admit it, even to yourself. Nebraska has been conservative for decades.

Since 1988 wasn't enough for you, here are the five previous winners of the state in the general election:
1984 = Reagan
1980 = Reagan
1976 = Ford
1972 = Nixon
1968 = Nixon

Is that far enough back for you? 35 years. Does that qualify as "decades"?

By the way, where's your proof to the contrary? You question all of my documentation, yet you provide nothing other than your own home-grown assumptions.

Your previous posts said NOTHING about a "long-term" rural strategy, and if you'd bother to read some of my other posts in this thread instead of making stuff up about topics you don't knowing anything about (such as the political history of Nebraska), you would note that I did. I said that the best long-term strategy is to concentrate on states we can WIN in 2004, not those that we're bound to lose.

Only by winning the election in 2004 can we have any chance whatsoever in helping out rural communities and family farmers. If the Republicans continue in power, they will obviously continue to neglect family farmers, rural communities, and poor people and minorities everywhere in the US.

Colorado is NOTHING like Wyoming politically. Ever heard of Boulder?

Look at the map, CL: http://www.mob-rule.com/counties/electoral.html

Obviously, quite a bit of Colorado voted for Gore. All counties in Wyoming went to Bush.

Colorado = 51/42 Bush
Wyoming = 68/28 Bush

Different? I certainly think so. Colorado is a place where I believe we CAN win. Making up a 40% deficit in Wyoming is not in any way realistic.

Also the states you seem to be interested in are all rural. So I don't know what your problem is?

You've obviously really read none of my posts. I don't have a problem. My point, however, is that I would rather that we focus on states that we can win rather than waste time and energy on states in which we will most certainly lose. Only by winning can we REALLY begin to turn things around and get rural and poor people everywhere the help they need and deserve.

I am not advocating ignoring rural communities or family farmers. If you had actually bothered to read my other posts in this thread, you would see that.

[Classical_Liberal]

101. In Post 79 I was clearly speaking long term

Here is what I said : "BTW, I would not focus on the Plains states in 2004. I would focus on Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and West Virgina. I do think we need a long term strategy to bring the non SBC, and non morman belt states back into the fold."


but that is ok just stay on message and don't actually discuss anything, with anyone.

I know that Nebraska isn't a big Mormon state so I know more about it's history than you do.

I also know that 1988 -2000 hardly equals a pattern of several decades.

[boxster]

107. I stand corrected.

Ok, how about the rest of your incorrect assertions....

"Stay on message"?

You're too funny. Your "message" changes every time you post. First, you said KS, NE, SD, and ND would have put us over the top in 2000, obviously having no understanding whatsoever that every one of those states were HUGE Bush wins.

You then said, "I have been to Nebraska and it is no more morman (sic) that (sic) Iowa" clearly having no clue what you were talking about.

I never said it was a "big Mormon" state. I was merely refuting your incorrect claim that it was no more Mormon than Iowa.

Go here: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_lds.html#links and click on the map above the Temple Geography Links section.

Take a look for yourself. Nebraska does indeed have a higher percentage of Mormons than Iowa. But, you're a Mormon historian apparently, so you knew that already.

Last, but certainly not least, you claimed that Nebraska has only been conservative for 10 years. This is so wrong that it is laughable. That's like saying Minnesota was staunchly conservative for the past 30 years. Your understanding of political history needs a little work.

"don't actually discuss anything, with anyone."

You should talk. You insist that even your fallacies are accurate, and you ignore the things I refute. Some discussion.

[Maine Mary]

14. Don't forget Maine's Sen. Majority Leader George Mitchell

(under GHB and Clinton)... as well Maine Sen. Ed Muskie who had alot to do with the environmental movement of the early 70's.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Earlier this week, I was reminded of what happens

when the Democrats abandon the rural areas:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4163393.html

This was not the only such incident to occur in the Upper Midwest in the early 1980s. Abandoned by the Democrats, who did nothing to stop the wave of foreclosures, some farmers took to neo-Nazi ideology, with its talk of "Jewish bankers." Never mind that the bankers in those small towns are almost all Gentiles--there's no telling what people will believe when they're desperate and uninformed.

Sure, the farm areas are socially conservative, but they have the potential to be economically liberal. I know from talking to people in that small town in Oregon that the problem is not inhernet freeperism but a feeling that no one cares.

By the way, one large urban area does not make a state urban. If you're fifty miles outside the Twin Cities, you are definitely in the country. And once you're outside of Chicago, Illinois is farms all the way to Kentucky.

[JackRiddler]

25. Unnecessarily provocative header...

I doubt anyone here thinks rural America should be abandoned!

The header raises an accusation with no support.

The problem is well described by boxster - what can be done against those numbers?

Of course, there are Iowa, Missouri and other rural states that can go Dem.

However, I think the most key strategy for unseating Bush would be to focus on the proven criminality of the regime. Of course all of the issues matter, but I do believe that is something that would break them with all voter categories, if it is done right and done consistently. This has done more to destroy our society than any other factor - the reality that crime pays and now everyone is aware that crime pays means that in the end we reach a point where crime is the primary driver - crime is in power. These are gangsters who are dismantling the constitution, plundering the treasury, and going on wars of piracy worldwide. Get that out consistently and they will fall apart.

[kodi]

27. what do democrats do for rural communities & how is it articulated to them

there are two steps, the first is what can government do to help small rural communities and the second is how can the word reach these commuites that voting democratic makes their lives better than republican policies.

all this week i was driving thru small rural communities in nc, sc, and ga. repeatedly i saw bumper stickers for bush. none for any democrat.

these places are hard-scrabble poor, yet the folks seem to think that their lives are better with bush than a democrat in the white house. leaving aside the corporate media filters, this is a result of the better articulation of the message the GOP has presented to them.

unfortunately it is true that in recent times the democrats focus on policies that stem from more highly industrialized and urban affairs than rural concerns.

democrats in these communities must concentrate on delivering the message that the ECONOMY, JOBS, and SCHOOLS in these communities will be better with democrats in office than the gop.

[Rich Hunt]

45. also, the ENVIRONMENT

The environment is an issue about which rural peoples are deeply, deeply concerned.

The message just needs to be tailored to the geography, that's all.

Also, another one to add to the list is Tom Harkin.

[kodi]

80. yes indeed, one needs to understand the concerns of rural people.

earlier today i had posted on the potential for well water being poisoned in rural communities in the LBN

[davsand]

94. The environment IS a big issue in rural areas.

Howver, it maybe isn't in the same was as it is in urban areas. Gore ws ok with mainstream Dems when it came to environmental issues. Gore was NOT ok with farmers on environmental issues. Gore was viewed as being a fanatic that would limit the use of herbicides and all the other chemicals used to maximize production and allow competition with the corporate farmers.

Dems CAN play well to Rural America, but they have to tone down on two major issues. Farm Chemicals and Gun ownership. I talked a bit about the chemical issue just now, but the Gun issue is equally large.

If I call 911 I am gonna wait at a minimum of 45minutes to see a Deputy. They aren't sitting in coffeeshops, they are covering a large area geographically. If somebody kicks in my front door, I better have something besides a frying pan to use to protect my family...

Laura

[Padraig18]

100. Bingo!

:toast: I'm lucky to live in town, but there are still many nights when my b/f is the only cop on duty in a town of #K people. Advice to city folk: don't break into a framer's house, unless you're fond of dirt naps--- they will shoot first and ask questions later. "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" is NOT empty rhetoric, in rural America.

[boxster]

108. 12 vs. 6 - so true.

"Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" is NOT empty rhetoric, in rural America.

That is so true. Guns are everywhere in rural America. One of my wife's cousins was suspended from high school for a couple of days because he forgot to take his deer rifle out of the gunrack in his pickup before driving to school! When I was growing up in SD, the school parking lot looked like an NRA convention.

It's a whole different world for those who aren't accustomed to it.

[havocmom]

113. Environment, and integrity are big issues

I live in eastern MT. This county voted 82% for Bush*. It will not happen again. They see that all was lies. They see the economy in tatters. They have their local economy, beef and wheat prices were good this year, but they feel for their city cousins. They know the job drain has to stop and that large companies with mailboxes in the Bahamas need to loose their tax loopholes. They want solutions to what ails the cities.

They fear the sort of problems Wyoming ranchers have since the extraction companies started massive drilling for coal bad methane. It means salty groung water poured out on their land, rendering it basically sterile. They are losing more and more local clinics and there face threats of local post offices being closed. And they see that the bush gang doesn't care squat. They want solutions to what ails the rural areas.

They have sons, daughters, husbands, wives called up and sent to Iraq. Somehow, rural areas seem to be very hard hit by guard call ups. It renders law enforcement and fire protection (volenteers in many communities) under staffed in many areas. They see that the reasons given for the invasion were bald faced lies and they are really pissed. The flags are off the pick up trucks and morale has been falling since the State of the Union Address. They started getting the sinking feeling that their trust has been betrayed. They are sore as hell about Wilson's wife being outed. The more information we manage to get them the better. These little towns get news via cable but they are also getting wired and internet savy. You would be surprised at the old crumudgeons I know who are getting better informed because of the internet.

If we treat them with respect, they might surprise us. If we listen and let them know there are win-win solutions to their problems and the nation's problems, they might rollup their sleeves and help us take this nation back. They see that the corporate scum and their paid for puppets are the enemy. They see that leaders have betrayed this nation. They know crooks when they see them.

These people are my neighbors. Bush* will not get 82% in this county next time. And we use pencils here when we vote. Perhaps large, urban areas could learn a thing or two from us, too. ;-)

[mainer]

28. Frankly, I think rural america is a lost cause

A frustrated eastern liberal's rant:

Voters in the rural "red states" who went for Bush are the ones who, ironically enough, are suffering the most under him. They're the ones whose sons and daughters, for want of better economic choices, joined the military and are now fighting in Iraq. They're the Nascar dads who thought they'd make out like bandits (hah!) with the tax cut, and find themselves holding a piddly little $200 refund while essential services worth thousands of dollars are cut. They're the ones who rooted for the war and waved flags and called us so-called city liberals traitors. They're the states who seem determined to once again support the frat boy "because he's a nice guy, not like that elite Al Gore".

You know what? I don't have much sympathy for those rural "red states", or for all the Nascar dads with the American flags flying from their trucks. They got the guy they voted for, and many of them seem dumb enough to vote for him again.

Yep, let's do what the red staters want -- cut federal programs! Slash federal money going out to the poorer states! The truth is, taxes from wealthy blue states like NY and Connecticut have been subsidizing the poorer red states for decades. Let the blue states keep their wealth within their own borders. It's time for the red states, who make such a big deal shouting "get government off our backs" to stop sucking up blue-state money.

Is there a cultural divide in this country? You betcha. when I travel to the south,and to rural sections of the midwest, I find myself in places where they still believe Iraq masterminded 9/11 and that WMD's have been found, and that George W. Bush is America's savior.

And they ridicule liberal democrats as the "wealthy elite."

I don't know how this all got turned so upside down. I just find it incredibly ironic that the wealthy elites I know are all Democrats who were AGAINST the tax cuts, while struggling Republican farmers are all against the very federal government that helps keep their states afloat.

I can't help feeling that it's time to let those red states sink. After all, it's what THEY voted for.

[Maine Mary]

30. You're a Mainer?

How did you come to have such polarized views on rurals then? Though Maine overall is a blue State, a good portion (North of Augusta) are rural red areas. Living up here I know these people well, and they differ greatly from your description. Yes they tend to vote R but up in this part of Maine, mostly because of the gun issue and a fear of Government- much of it is not unfounded BTW. Southern urban Maine often tries to impose it's will on the people up here just because THEY have a problem. Rurals don't like having a 'solution' imposed on them for a problem they don't have. And sadly they perceive the D's as worse of the 2 evils in that respect.

[NicoleM]

33. Umm. . .

The truth is, taxes from wealthy blue states like NY and Connecticut have been subsidizing the poorer red states for decades.

The truth is that a lot of those subsidies helped NY and Connecticut keep eating.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Wow! I am so glad that you're not creating Democratic strategy!

I can't help feeling that it's time to let those red states sink. After all, it's what THEY voted for.

And to think that I aligned myself with the Democrats because I believe in the "We're all in this together" line of thought. If I would have known that the "You didn't vote for me because I wasn't able to show you that I'd really do anything to help you out in spite of the fact that you're really hurting, so SCREW YOU!" attitude was more indicative of the Democrats -- hell, I wouldn't have wasted my time!

As someone pointed out above, this is a bigger issue that just rural voters. This is an issue to decide what our FARM POLICY is going to be, which directly descends into WHAT YOU EAT. If you're perfectly comfortable in NOT sticking up for rural areas -- where family farms traditionally have been -- and instead getting agribusiness GM crops and hormone-filled meats at your grocery store, go right ahead.

Personally, that whole idea rather frightens me, and I'd rather seek to help out these rural folks so that, by consequence, they are helping ME out.

You know, that whole, "We're all in this together" attitude that is so, well, antiquated these days....

[Padraig18]

37. "It's not polite to cuss farmers with your mouth full."

A rural illinois saying...

[Rich Hunt]

47. I don't think they're farmers

...most farming is run by big agribusiness these days.

In my experience, family farmers are big supporters of the populist-type Democrats. There aren't that many of them, though.

Your typical freeper is usually a small business owner or an independent contractor of some type - not a farmer or some poor person living in a trailer on the side of a hill.

[Clete]

75. We can't abandon rural people anymore than we have.

The truth is that the Democratic Party hasn't reached out to them and tried to understand their problems. The Republicans of course promise them anything to get their votes and then don't deliver.

[rman]

81. a DLC ploy to reduce dems chances

It's official DLC policy to ignore the south wrt the elections, cause it is so conservative it isn't worth the effort.
I'd say if indeed it isn't worth the effort, then Dems might as well not run for the presidency at all and just give up now.

In between this policy, redistricting and ballot-tampering, it's pretty much a guaranteed win for the Right.

Then again much of the south is suffering at the hands of repubs, perhaps more so then the rest of the US.
All in all there's probably more reason to put extra effort in winning southern states then there reason is to abandon it.

[Classical_Liberal]

82. The DLC want to pander to the South's conservatives by triangulating

republican ecnomic cruelty against the poor and the blacks. Please read Zell Miller. The Christian coalition were the biggest defenders of Alabama's regressive taxation on the poor.

[Gingergal]

85. When I saw this titile, I thought it was a discussion of the

article from the Nation. It is an excellent article and having farm/ranch relatives, I read it.
Bascially, the idea is that the family farmers are being ignored by the repugs on economic issues and they have voted repug on social issues. But the Dems could court them on economic issues to save the family farms without abandoning our positions on social issues. Please read it if you are interested in this problem.

October 16, 2003

Needed: A Rural Strategy
by JOHN NICHOLS

<http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031103&s=nichols2>

[the_real_38]

98. Did you read the article in The Nation last week?

These voters are receptive to an economic message - if the democrats could just present a cohesive one, i.e. if they could act like Democrats and give a rat's ass about working people and small farmers.

[elperromagico]

102. I've always said

"Play like you can win all 50 states, but realize that you probably won't."

[DemDogs]

104. Edwards - The candidate with a rural agenda

Not only does Edwards come from rural roots, he has the first and best rural agenda. <http://www.johnedwards2004.com/rural-america.asp> He didn't come to the issue late. He came early and strong and he is connecting with rural voters.

[Padraig18]

112. Edwards is my 2nd choice. n/t

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

106. Yes As a Cosmopolitan NY Metro Northerner, He'll Certainly Win the Hearts

and Minds of rural Georgia and Texas

:eyes:

[TennesseeWalker]

111. PLEASE don't abandon us.....

..we need help!