winning enough rural votes to change outcomes - very sensible discussion

[msongs]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/29/1605255/-Building-A-Party-Of-The-Future-Part-1-Before-You-Advocate-A-Rural-Strategy-Try-Visiting
Building A Party Of The Future, Part 1. Before You Advocate A Rural Strategy, Try Visiting.

summary - repubs get enough votes in rural areas to counter dems in cities. so put a dem in EVERY race including rural which will shave enough votes off the repubs rural totals to allow dems majorites elsewhere to carry the day

[RandySF]

1. I'm still so stunned that I won't even pretend to have answers.

[LisaM]

2. Adding more candidates would be helpful.

I concur entirely.

[guillaumeb]

3. Recommended. An excellent analysis. eom

[msongs]

4. yes for practical results just get more votes from everywhere you are currently ignoring

vo

[guillaumeb]

5. Howard Dean and the 50 state strategy. Why do Democrats have to constantly relearn these things?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

6. They need to put him back as head of the DNC

Or have him run again. I got to live under his leadership in Vermont and he was a damn good, hard working leader.

[metroins]

7. Guns and religion

Pander towards guns and religion.

[Shemp Howard]

8. No. That's both wrong and insulting.

The key to recapturing rural America is to focus on bringing back good jobs. Every American wants a good life for their children. But that's often not possible now. The middle-class jobs are gone, and rural America wants those jobs back.

Bernie got that. Michael Moore got that. Trump certainly got that. But Hillary missed it completely. And that's why she lost.

[Wounded Bear]

9. Aye, there's the rub...

but the fact is, the only candidate that actually had programs to reach out to rural folks and get them jobs was Hillary. Trump has bombast and empty promises of re-opening coal mines and 1950's era factories. Bernie had the rhetoric, but I don't recall many active proposals that would lead to real jobs, just his "tax the wealthy" ideas and infrastructure.

Real answers don't fit on bumper stickers. Slogans won't lead to real jobs. America desperately needs a policy wonk in charge. Instead we got a reality TV host.

[Shemp Howard]

10. Hillary might have had the ideas...

...but she sure didn't get those ideas across to the average voter. I live in a rust-belt state, one with high unemployment. I saw many TV ads from Trump talking about how he'd bring good jobs back.

I saw many Hillary TV ads as well. But none of them addressed jobs! They all talked about how HRC cares about children. Whoever came up with those ads should be fired. Utter failure. Will Democrats learn from all this? I hope so.

[Wounded Bear]

11. How could she?

When she tried to talk about it, it was always BENGHAZI!!!! EMAILS!!!!

Hard to get traction on substantive issues when the media are chasing some shiny bauble that boosts the controversy and ratings.

[Shemp Howard]

13. She had control over her own TV ads.

As I mentioned earlier, her ads in my state were appallingly bad. That's on her, and on her staff. I know that's Monday-morning quarterbacking, but I really believe that people in my state would have gone for her had she presented herself better.

Among my friends, Trump was seen as dangerous and unpredictable, a loose cannon of the worst kind. But at least he addressed the job issue in his ads. But Hillary did not. Not a word about jobs.

It's not my intent to demonize Hillary here. I do, however, hope that the party learns something from this. Jobs matter.

[FogerRox]

16. Hillary's increase

in infrastructure was something like 208 billion a year, Bernies was 250 billion.
Both proposals were too modest.

250 billion is 1.5% of GDP on top of existing spending of 1.2%, totals 2.7% when we should be spending 6% of GDP, about 850 billion additional dollars, this would create about 21 million jobs and add 89 billion a year in additional FICA revenue ensuring Social Security is good thru 2090.

The reason Bernie wanted to tax the wealthy to pay for infrastructure is that Obama has signed a "Pay as you GO" bill. In fact if you look at Both Hillary and Bernie websites, both candidates paid for everything in a responsible way.

None of Trumps tax breaks are funded so the Pay as you GO makes his tax breaks a no go, unless the GOP repeals "Pay as you Go".

[sarisataka]

12. There is serious myopia

among those shouting 'Fuck rural Americans'

The party has essentially surrendered much of rural American without a fight. Then urban Dems are shocked and outraged when those areas go solid red.

As the article points out, there are rural Dems but many don't vote. Why? Simple, no one is asking for their vote, there are told by their own party that their votes are not needed to win elections and urban Dems lump them into a monolithic block of uneducated fundamentalist racists.

[SMC22307]

14. Didn't Hillary lose something like 32 Iowa counties that voted for Obama?

Maybe it wasn't "rural" that was the problem...

[JSup]

15. Another thing...

...could be not looking down on people that live in rural areas.

[uponit7771]

17. YES, YES, YES !!! Deans 50 state and every county strategy RIGHT HOT DAMN NOW!!!

[Garrett78]

18. Clinton or surrogates should have spent more time in rural towns, but...

...that's a separate argument from the baseless "working class whites/blue collar workers" argument put forth by many on DU. See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512632931.

[RonniePudding]

19. Beyond the point of the OP

But it's not really about winning these rural areas, it's about keeping the margin of loss down. Losing these areas by 30 or 35 pts instead of 50 or 60 pts.