Rural Democrats: Party Ignored Us, Suffered the Consequences

[Garrett78]

63. That article makes more sense than DU's popular "working class whites" narrative.

The Nancy Larson quote is silly (as if urbanites and suburbanites aren't "ordinary people&quot , but Roarty's article makes sense. After the election, Obama made the point that he visited a lot of rural towns so as to not lose those towns as badly as he would have if he hadn't visited them (minimizing losses and maximizing gains are both important). The OP is essentially saying the same thing, along with pointing out 2 common sense ideas:

1) that rural Dems are more likely to vote if the Dems do outreach in their communities (do some advertising and, if not sending the candidate there, at least send some surrogates who have rural experience--Bill Clinton, for instance)

2) campaign in part on bringing broadband Internet to rural communities (a specific, sensible proposal)

The DU narrative suggests that Clinton didn't speak enough about economic issues, such as addressing jobs or the rising costs of health insurance. And that's bullshit. Her website, her speeches and her debate performances all addressed those issues at length and with great substance (to a *much* greater extent than Trump did). Plus, that narrative implies that working class POC don't care about economic issues, which is absurd. And there really is no excuse for supporting Trump.

For tens of millions of Americans, racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism, Christian supremacy and single issues (like abortion) take precedence over everything else. Throughout US history, there's been a white backlash to racial progress (such as the election of Obama and his executive action that produced DACA). There isn't a whole lot Dems can do about that--a sizable portion of the electorate (35+ percent) is simply not reachable, and that's always been the case.

And tens of millions subscribe to patently false beliefs.

People are going to believe what they're going to believe.

Also, the exact same message could win in 2020 so long as the messenger isn't Clinton. Let's face it, she was victimized by decades of hate (much of it totally irrational and rooted in sexism and misogyny).

And we can't overlook voter suppression (Shelby County v. Holder decision was devastating) or FBI interference. Or the deadful media. And when it comes to House races, we can't overlook gerrymandering as a huge factor.

But, yes, Dems should do more outreach to rural communities, particularly where there are POC. The crux of the message doesn't have to change much. Dems just need to show up.