Democrats: Give rural voters a reason to trust and support the party

[Vidal]

Source: The Hill

by: Richard Ojeda (D), a member of the West Virginia Senate, representing District 7, and a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in West Virginia's 3rd Congressional District.

****************

"First, every candidate we support must connect with the people they will potentially represent. We need candidates who are deeply rooted in their communities, working-class people who understand the struggles their neighbors face. That is the future of the Democratic Party. In other words, we need to recruit and support candidates who “get it.” No more country club candidates with political connections and heavy bank accounts. We must look for leaders who have exhibited a lifetime of service to their communities and have proven that their intention is to help people.

Second, we have to put in the work. For years, Democrats have depended on heavily populated areas within their districts to carry them and have ignored rural communities. This is unacceptable. All Americans deserve to see, speak to and hear from our candidates. No county is insignificant, no community too small, and each person’s vote is important. I put at least 500 miles on my Jeep every weekend. Why? Because traveling around southern West Virginia to talk with people is worth my effort. I’m reminded of President Kennedy campaigning in Logan County in 1960. Standing on a kitchen chair, against a backdrop of the Appalachian mountains and surrounded by coal camp kids, he assured the people of West Virginia that he was on their side. He won the state with 61 percent of the vote.

Third, we must move away from elitism and a politics-as-usual perspective. Voters relate to someone who is genuine, someone they can trust. I hand out cards in my district that have my personal cell phone number on them. I encourage voters to call me with questions. When they call, they do not get a recording or a secretary, and if I am in a meeting or traveling, I always call them back. At our live, online town hall meetings no one filters or sorts the questions beforehand, and we do not screen people or turn them away. If you believe in something, be willing to explain it.

The people in my district work hard, as do working families across this great nation. If we Democrats get back to our roots of being the party for the people and by the people, we will win everywhere that hardworking people live – and it won’t take an opponent as dreadful as Roy Moore to pull it off. Rural voters are our base, and we must give them a reason to trust us again. They must know beyond doubt that we hear them, they are not forgotten and we are ready to fight for them and their families."

***********************

[Fullduplexxx]

1. Is this another 'we need to reach out to the angry trump voter' lectures

Democrats have depended on heavily populated areas within their districts to carry them and have ignored rural communities. 

What part of the aca is specifically for heavily populated areas

What part of keeping the net neutral is specifically for heavily populated areas

What part of raising the minimum wage is specifically for heavily populated areas

What part of gender equality is specifically for heavily populated areas

What part of equal pay for equal work is specifically designed for heavily populated areas

This just sounds like stereotypical complaining.

[Kirk Lover]

3. I would have no problem reaching out but they don't want to reach out to us, they don't

want to try to understand OUR way of life, we are just to understand theirs...and I DO, but it's has to be mutual and two way. FUCK THIS.

[moriah]

12. Not really. The rural poor have logical reasons to vote for us.

Appeal to their logic and do what you can. There's no need to pull to the middle to do that.

Doug Jones in particular was a great example of a person who had led a lifetime of service to run. Yes, with Alabama's large rural African-American population that helped him, but the rural poor aren't all out in the country because they are rednecks.

In my state, Arkansas, we have many areas that are both rural and liberal, even if they're near areas that are rural and not. But they're all poor, all their kids are still on lunches (why else would they complain about school lunches, if they could send a bagged one instead of having to pay?), all their kids are going to lose health care, etc.

If they won't buy those rational arguments don't waste the time, but it's never a waste to give the rational argument that Trump is NOT going to use lube when he implements his policies against the poor, and it's going to affect them.

But if nothing else, for FSM's sake, we must run SOME candidate in every district for 2018. In 2016 most of our Republican congresscritters ran unopposed except by Libertarians. It wasn't uncommon for Republicans to, in the past, be the ones not fielding candidates in those districts. We can get some of them back with logic and self-interest.

And we see that high Dem turnout even in Red counties where we may only get 25-35% eats away at the numbers the Republicans have to manage to get in urban areas to break even. I knew it was going to Jones because of the rural Red counties having higher than average Dem votes.

[Sophia4]

21. Rural areas need liberal radio and better internet services.

Net neutrality is not going to help rural areas.

Favoring private and charter schools is not going to help children in rural areas.

Reducing government support for higher education, especially agricultural and engineering education, will not help students in rural areas.

Attempting to continue to rely on coal, gas and oil -- fossil fuels -- as these resources dwindle and become more and more expensive and dangerous to produce to say nothing of further degrading the environment will not help people in rural areas.

The platform of Democrats with regard to issue after issue is pro-rural-areas. There is no denying it.

The problem is that Democrats in rural areas have no spokespeople to explain how the Democratic view will serve rural Americans. It's the lack of effective radio and TV communication that thwarts organization in rural America.

Republicans are really the party of the rich enclaves, the suburbs of cities, the annointed of the right-wing media. They don't, at all, and I repeat, don't at all, present views that will further, protect or help rural areas. Not at all.

They just have better media representation in rural areas because they can afford it.

AND, the Republicans have a lot more money to pour into campaigns in rural areas and present themselves as representing certain ostensibly moral and religious views and prejudices that are believed to be common in rural areas.

Fear, fear, fear. Fear of homosexuality, of abortion, of racial differences, of lifestyle differences and many, many more superficial and natural aspects of life everywhere are fodder for the Republican hate machine.

Democrats represent the best interests of rural America, but we don't sell our message as well as Republicans do.

[Willie Pep]

32. The best way to put it is "a little bit is better than nothing."

Even if we assume that rural whites are a Republican demo even slicing away 10-15 percent from the GOP can make a huge difference in close races. Plus a lot of poor rural whites probably don't vote at all because they are so demoralized. These people aren't necessarily hardcore Trump-style voters. They can be won over with a good message and some footwork by the Democrats who go out and get to know them.

A lot of states don't have big minority populations that can win races for us like what happened in Alabama with Doug Jones. A 50-state strategy requires appealing to poor and working-class whites since there aren't enough college-educated white liberals and non-whites in every state to rely entirely on them.

[Blue_true]

14. I did not get that from what the Senator wrote.

One of my issues with my Democratic candidates is they use big words too often and do adhere to campaigning in big population areas. If a Democrat go into an area that he or she know is against him or her, but come out with 100 more votes to add to a statewide total, that is a win as long as the candidate stays true to the core values of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, if we plan to retake majorities, we will have moderate office holders, numbers dictate that reality.

[Fullduplexxx]

18. I heard john fugelsang say the same thing he said Democrats always use big words

Like oligarch instead of saying rich evil rat-bastard.

[Butterflylady]

26. Exactly

Trumps limited vocabulary proved that point. I don't think he knows words over 6 letters

[Sophia4]

22. Are you saying that Democratic voters are better educated than Republican ones?

If rural Democrats run for office, they will speak the same language as local Republicans.

Are you saying that Democrats would win if we just dumbed ourselves down?

How about raising up rural America with good, liberal radio and TV?

[Blue_true]

24. What I am saying is that you have to use language that people understand.

It has nothing to do with dumbing down, it has more to do with using words and phrases that people are struggling to keep up with and as a consequence, tune out the speaker of big words.

I remember my days in Engineering College. The professors who I remember most and appreciate most are the ones that took complex material and broke it down so that young minds could grasp the details of the material, those professors also got their class sessions filled before students signed up for the sessions of other professors. I have had a long engineering career and one key thing that I learned is how to talk to the audience that I was speaking to, if I am speaking to Finance people that have money to invest in new ideas, I craft a message that they can understand, if I fail in that I am out of luck.

[Sophia4]

27. I'm retired. I pretty much wrote for a living (not by my choice).

That is to say that my jobs tended to turn into writing jobs. My bosses just liked my writing.

I love language. I love sound. That said, that understood, here is my response to your post:

It's better to bring people up and educate them than to talk down to them.

One of my French professors used to say that if it wasn't clear, it wasn't French.

That's true. Language should be clear. Using big words is fun. If I am writing for a court, I expect my readers to be educated and to understand what I write when I use the right word, short or long, regardless of length, to express an idea.

If I am talking to a four-year-old, I explain things clearly so my four-year-old can understand. It isn't a matter of using big or little, complex or simple words. It is a matter of using the appropriate word and gauging your language to your audience.

I'm great with young children. I played a big role in raising my granddaughter. She has a large vocabulary. I love stories. So does she. I love to talk and write. So does she. I can use big words or little words. Again, gauge your language to your audience because it is about communication not the size of the words.

One reason Trump angers so many Americans is that his language, his English, is primitive. He does not express himself well. It is just appalling. Frightful. Embarrassing. A horror to listen to him.

If America and the world are to thrive as our environment deteriorates and our population grows, we need people capable of more complex but also more efficient thinking, better communication and social skills. We really, really don't need to dumb ourselves down. Communicate better. Yes. Dumb ourselves down. No.

Scolding the intelligent for using "big" words is not where it is at. Using a dictionary to improve our vocabularies is where it is at.

Mankind does not progress by dumbing down. Our country is the product of the Enlightenment and of the Protestant movement. Our Founding Fathers reacted against the stupidity and intellectual barrenness of the monarchical organization of Europe of their time. Read some Jefferson. His vocabulary was excellent. So was John Adams'.

Clarity is the issue. The professors you liked communicated. They spoke clearly. They were able to explain complicated matters in terms you as a young person could understand. They understood and could clearly explain terminology you were unfamiliar with. That's why you liked them. That is the talent of a teacher. Some engineers have it, but not all. You were lucky to have teachers who were both engineers and capable of teaching.

If I wrote here in the simplest French or German or Italian or Spanish, and you just didn't know those languages, you would not understand.

It's a matter of being clear, not of using smaller words. And it's also a matter of speaking the same language. The language of the average Fox News viewer is probably very different from that of the average MSNBC viewer. Hence, the Fox News viewer does not understand the MSNBC viewer. They speak different languages. One is not necessarily more complex than the other. They just understand different words.

By the way, I have never seen or heard any TV commentator who explains things as clearly and carefully as Rachel Maddow. She is a teacher as well as a TV news presenter. She does an excellent job of explaining things. So if conservatives want to understand liberals (and they usually don't want to and that's why they don't), Rachel Maddow's show is a good place to start. Thom Hartmann is also good at explaining liberal concepts to conservatives in clear, simple language. The liberal comedians are good at it too.

Dumbing down is not what liberals need to do. Not at all. We need to speak clearly, but we don't need to dumb down. We should choose the right word for what we want to say, whether complicated or simple.

What conservatives don't like about liberals is not liberal language. It is the compassion. The liberal philosophy is compassionate. Conservatives hate that.
And that is the fact.

[NobodyInParticular]

31. Colbert comment on Trump's erudition

President Donald Trump weighed in on Lauer’s firing, tweeting “Wow.”

“Wait a minute!” Colbert said. “I’m still not used to a President typing in the words ‘Wow’. That’s’ like if the first draft of the Gettysburg Address was ‘Holy guacamole! This war sucks!”

http://deadline.com/2017/11/stephen-colbert-donald-trump-matt-lauer-fired-dont-get-to-comment-video-1202217154/

[Blue_true]

35. I have two published novels, I have written hundreds of engineering reports.

I don't need a lecture on writing and communication. A person has to communicate with people before "bringing them up" to his or her level. People tune out when people talk above their heads, that outcome accomplishes nothing.

[Sophia4]

36. Communication is a two-way street.

Trump does not communicate well at all in my view. His language use suggests that he is not very intelligent.

To be a citizen in a democracy requires a willingness to educate oneself for participation.

I'm not exactly agreeing or disagreeing with you.

But I am saying that thoughtful, intelligent, well educated people should not be shamed into talking at the Trump level.

If Americans are so stupid and so proud of their stupidity, so uneducated and so proud of their lack of education that they refuse to focus and understand what wise, well educated people say to them, they will elect fools like Trump and eventually lose their country. So be it.

Living in a democracy imposes a certain responsibility on each citizen to be informed and educated well enough to understand issues and make judgments for all.

So be it.

If people are too stupid and to poorly educated and informed, then our form of government will become a dictatorship. With Trump, we may well be on our way to that end.

It's a sad truth.

[Blue_true]

40. Trump is a moron.

His vocabulary is grade school level. I am not advocating reaching willfully ignorant people like the type that love Alex Jones or Limbaugh. I am talking about someone like the diner waitress that finished high school and some college or is in college and votes republican because she understand what the republican candidate says but can't understand what the Democrat is saying because the Democrat regularly use terms that she is not familiar with. If that woman tunes out, she votes for the republican and make her life worse.

[Sophia4]

41. In my experience, it is best to personally meet and talk voters like the waitress you describe

I have done a lot of tabling and door-to-door canvassing.

I am small and friendly. Not intimidating in person. And I love talking with people. That's the best approach for the kinds of voters you are talking about. It works. And you make a lot of friends that way.

If you talk with people personally, you can respond to their interest, listen to them (the most important thing) and perhaps explain in a very personal way why you are supporting your candidate. But that requires a lot of time. One-on-one campaigning is best.

[Blue_true]

38. Let me try again, I was snappy on the last response.

I have sat in engineering conferences where some presenters have completely lost the audience. All of the people were highly educated technical people. One common factor that I saw with speakers that fell flat was use of words that the audience was unfamiliar with, without introducing those words and their meaning or using bridge words that allows the audience to make connections. One of the unfortunate things is Research and Development engineering has instances where new terms are introduced to name physical appearances or outcomes, when people pop those up in first pass presentations they lose a lot of pretty smart people.

[Sophia4]

39. Clarity is the key. Defining words that may be misunderstood by the audience

is an important aspect of clarity in my view. On that we agree. Absolutely.

On the other hand, today, in our democracy, many people are failing to fulfill their duty to inform themselves and to try to understand the views of all sides. And that IS our duty as citizens in a democracy. We cannot blame others for using words we don't understand. We have to study and learn what those words mean.

To get elected, usually, a politician has to be able to communicate which means make him- or herself understood. That means as you point out, he or she has to explain things carefully and with compassion for the listener.

I know I will get a lot of flack on this website if I point a simple fact out: Bernie Sanders is very good at communicating. He knows how to explain things, how to speak to people. Just a fact in my view.

I think that lectures about engineering or technical or intellectual topics are a category of their own. The lecturer expects a professional office to be familiar with the terminology before the lecture begins. Right or wrong, that is very different from a political speech or writing on DU.

[Kirk Lover]

2. I hate the elitism 'brand'...it's so not true...most of us are working slobs. n/t

[Fullduplexxx]

5. And who is this guy kidding the Republicans are the most elitist group in the bunch and these rural

Keep voting for cons anyway. nobody in the Republican Party reaches out to them . so they can either start voting for Democrats or they can just live with their Republican overlords.

[Jspur]

4. Don't care about

reaching these people. They have proven time and time again that they are a bunch of deplorables. The only language they know is hate.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Look around...it's already happening...

Virginia was like this. Alabama is like this. Texas is doing this now, with a plethora of D candidates running at all levels of government.

FTR, I always like to push back a little bit on this bullshit. Small town solutions don't work in cities and suburbs either. The problem is reciprocal.

This talk is like stamping new coins. They pile up,
while the real work is being done outside
by someone digging in the ground.

- Rumi

[tenderfoot]

7. What a waste of time...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029977934

[Aristus]

8. To Hell with that. And to Hell with them.

Our outreach efforts only ever get us a bite on the hand from the hillbillies and rednecks. If we came out in favor of oxygen, those clodhoppers would just go and tape plastic bags over their heads to demonstrate their refusal to align with Democrats about anything

[LonePirate]

9. Democrats have always given rural voters reasons to vote blue. Rural voters simply rejected them.

So long as rural (white) voters care mostly about racism, God, guns, gays and abortion, Dems will not make in roads with them. Rural voters need to change their priorities and then they will likely start voting for Democrats.

[gratuitous]

16. Got it in one

Democrats definitely need to be out in the rural venues and small towns, and many of them have been out there (cf. The Rural Organizing Project). One of the things we can do better is to tell them the stories of what Democrats have done for them (Social Security, Medicare, Affordable Care Act), and to tell the counter-story to what they think Republicans have done for them.

Abortion is one such counter-story. Republicans have been riding that one for decades. Democrats need to point out that for all their promises and bluster, when Republicans have had total control of the federal government like they did from 2002 to 2006 and again beginning in 2017, what have they actually done? Nothing. They promise the moon and don't deliver even a scrap of cheese. If rural voters for whom abortion is their big, single issue feel like Republicans are leading them around by the nose, they should go with that feeling. But if there are other issues that matter to them, like living out their golden years with a measure of financial security, maybe they need to take a fresh look at what Democrats have done for them. Done, not promised. Done.

[msongs]

11. more assistance for people who hate it when other people get assistance lol. coal subsidy, farm

subsidy, etc. government assistance paid for by taxpayers has its place to be sure. the blue states can keep overpaying taxes to subsidize the red states.

[DetlefK]

13. I think rural voters are butt-hurt because reality does not live up to the nationalist hype.

The US has this mythology how rural voters are somehow "real Americans".
Not the majority of the population who's living in the cities. No. The "real Americans" is the minority that's living in rural areas.

Well, they are the "real Americans". That means, they deserve special attention, right?
They deserve to be portrayed in art (yet movies focus on people in cities).
They deserve to be heard (yet the media focuses on people in cities).
They deserve preferential treatment (yet industry and banks get preferential treatment).


They have been told all their lives that they deserve preferential treatment.
* Republicans are promising them preferential treatment. (Republicans breaking their promises is a different topic.)
* Democrats are not promising them preferential treatment. Democrats are promising that all people be treated equal.



Republican voters look out for THEMSELVES. They don't mind cuts to other people. Those other people don't deserve food-stamps. But if you threaten THEIR food-stamps suddenly all hell breaks loose.



Rural voters have been deluded by this mythology. Republicans play along with these delusions, Democrats don't. That's the difference.




I said it months ago: There is only one way how the Democrats can win over this kind of voters.
NOT WITH FACTS. BUT WITH LYING.

[Sophia4]

23. Rural voters, that is, voters in less populated states, pick the president.

It is a statistical fact.

California has a huge population, but only two senators.

Since the electoral college includes one elector for every representative and senator a state has, and since California (same for other populated states with large, urban areas) is short-changed on senators compared to rural, less populated states, . . .

Californians, as individual voters, have far less say in electing the president than do voters in rural states.

Voters in rural, less populated states also have better representation in the Senate. Two senators per state. In California, that means two senators for an estimated 39,250,017 people while in Iowa, that means two senators for an estimated 3,134,693.

The unfairness in our country is toward people living in urban, heavily populated areas when it comes to both the Senate and presidential elections.

Rural Americans have so many advantages and complain so much. Clean air, less crowding. Oh, my God. I lived in rural America as a child. People who can make a living even if it is not a great one in rural America are so lucky. It's wonderful to live there. The quality of life when it comes to things that really matter is far, far better in rural America than in urban America.

And, remember, many of us who live in urban America, in big cities and use all those big words, are the children or grandchildren of the younger brothers and sisters of people in rural America.

Generally, only one of a farmer's children gets to inherit the land, the farm. The other children have to make it in the city. The reality of farming is that one kid, usually a son, inherits the farm. The brothers and sisters have to settle for an education or jobs in towns and cities.

The reality is that rural America IS privileged America.

The numbers don't lie on this issue. Housing is cheaper in rural America. Food is plentiful and fresh in rural America. The air is clean. It is quieter. It is healthier if you choose to live a healthy life.

Farming is hard work. But so is working in a warehouse or teaching school in the inner city or just about any other job people do in the city. And when you farm, you own something that you can sell for real money -- land. A lot of people who live in cities rent their housing and own the shirts on their backs and have nothing to sell or leave to their children.

Rural America should stop whining. They have it good. They are better represented in our government than are urban Americans. Again, stop whining, rural America.

[HughBeaumont]

15. If I find that haystack needle reasonable rural conservative out there, then fine.

But I don't build bridges with people who continually blame the powerless for the destruction by the powerful.

I don't build bridges with people who espouse tired excuses like "YOU MADE ME DO IT!!1!!! YOU MADE ME VOTE TRUMP@!!", which essentially are the words of an abuser.

I don't build bridges with people who are morally in the Bronze Age, economically in the Gilded Age, culturally in the Antebellum South and technologically in the mid-1990s.

I don't build bridges with people who regard themselves as victims when their party controls all parts of government, has an entire religion co-opting their policies, has a media which bends over backwards to broadcast their narrative, utilizes a self-destructive near-pure Capitalism subscribed to by much of the political spectrum and is funded by the same evil sociopaths that pollute our earth, bankrupt our kids, criminalize sick people and reinstituted slavery with the modern prison labor system.

I don't build bridges with people who hate women so much that they'll put an unqualified serial sexual assaulter in office over a qualified moderate who would preserve Obama's path.

And most importantly, I'm not building bridges with someone who thought "President Donald Trump" was a great idea in the first place; it'd be like trying to reanimate squished roadkill.

[Fred Sanders]

20. If one were to read Charles Pierce's eyewitness account of Moore's election eve rally one would

choke back the vomit and flee from any notion of making nice with such folk.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14415471/roy-moore-last-rally/

[Garrett78]

17. "Rural voters are our base."

In some alternate universe, perhaps, but not this one.

[kydo]

19. We've been giving these rural voters GREAT reasons to trust & support Dems.They don't want to listen

You can't convince someone something if they will not even listen to you.

We don't need them. They are a waste of time. The info is out there, when a rural voter is sick and tired of being sick and tired, they might listen to what the Dems have to offer.

We should be working on the future. Not the past.

[SharonClark]

25. What do Repugs do to "Give rural voters a reason to trust and support the party"?

A poor economy, higher taxes, poor air and water quality, and bad schools. Oh yeah, they promise to ban abortion and restore whites and christians to their rightful place at the top of the pecking order.

[Adrahil]

37. They hate the same people NT

[NCDem777]

28. Question

How do you relate to voters who want contradictory things?

[hatrack]

29. You can talk all you want . . .

If the other person isn't listening, you're wasting your time.

By and large, rural America isn't listening to Democrats. Maybe someday, more of them will listen, or won't listen. That choice is up to them.

In the mean time, going after restrictive BS voting laws, challenging gerrymandering and energizing Democrats have to be our priorities.

[MiltonBrown]

30. Great stuff, thanks for posting!

A new Will Rogers would help too.

There are a lot of good folks in rural red states that are with us. I know that I fit like a square peg on DU sometimes but I stick it out because I know DU is on the side of goodness, peace, truth and justice. I even looked into Jackpine Radicals and rejected them due to their hatred of Hillary.

I live in a trailer, work a manual labor job for peanuts, am white and male and heterosexual. I like big old American cars and the Old West and pin-up girls and Elvis and music with fiddles and steel-guitars. And I am and always will be a peace loving DEMOCRAT doing what I can to make the world a better place for everybody.

We can be different as night and day but have the same values and all be pulling for the side of justice and truth!

[Willie Pep]

34. I have relatives who live in rural Louisiana and they are hardcore liberal Democrats.

They are devout Catholics too so on the surface you would expect them to be hardcore Republicans. They might be a minority in their communities but their votes are still important especially given how close so many important races are these days.

[treestar]

33. They already have that

They value other things rather than their own economic self-interest.

How come the monied elites are OK but the educated ones are not?

[Bradical79]

42. I've got no problem giving them a reason to vote Dem

As long as those reasons aren't damaging and counterproductive. For example, heavily subsidizing coal and supporting coal power plants. Or support removing the enviromental regulations that keep my state's rivers from catching fire. Or conforming to the Neo-Nazi anti-"identity politics" narritive. And so on...

[appalachiablue]

43. Link for full article w/ background, added information and worth reading.

The Hill, 'Democrats: Give Rural Voters A Reason To Trust And Support The Party', By Richard Ojeda, Opinion Contributor, 12/15/17.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/365019-democrats-stop-blaming-voters-and-do-some-soul-searching

Intro/Excerpts

With celebratory wins on Tuesday, Democrats across the nation are energized, hopeful and excited about the future. In Alabama, newcomer Doug Jones defeated a Republican statewide for the first time in over 20 years. In Virginia, a wave of blue in the statehouse made it seem as though the tides might be turning in our nation. But look closer. Even though we had a huge win in Virginia, rural counties across the state voted Republican. And I am convinced that had Alabama’s Roy Moore been a better candidate, he would have won that seat by a large margin. We can and should be able to win in Southern and Appalachian states regularly, not just against an opponent accused of sexually assaulting minors.

One of the first things I learned about politics came from my family, generations of coal miners in southern West Virginia. “Democrats are for working people, son,” they said as they cleaned the coal dust from their faces. People in my town voted Democratic for years. Now, things have changed. Over the past decade, West Virginia voters have turned away from their Democratic roots to support Republicans who speak to the issues that matter most to hardworking miners and their families. Across Appalachia and rural America, Democrats have found themselves wondering if they could compete in red districts that once were historically blue.
 
Democratic politicians have trotted into poor places such as Logan County, where nearly 20 percent of the people live below poverty level. They ride in on their high horses, villainize coal miners and their families, and offer nothing more than welfare and retraining for jobs that do not exist. When Hillary Clinton labeled Donald Trump's supporters as deplorables, she finally said what rural voters had suspected for a long time: Democrats saw them as insignificant, looked down on them and were not listening to those suffering in Appalachia and rural America.

When I ran for state Senate in 2016, I was worried as a Democrat during a hotly contested and partisan election year that my eagerness to fight for West Virginia families would not be enough to win. But the voters chose me to represent the 7th Senatorial District – the same district that overwhelmingly supported a convict over Barack Obama in 2012 and where more than 30 percent of registered Democrats supported Trump. If I can win here, Democrats can win anywhere, but first we’ve got to stop blaming voters for voting “against their self-interest” and do some soul-searching about what we, as Democrats, need to do differently. > More at the Link above.

[Awsi Dooger]

44. Rurals will react to a bullshitter white male who partially deflects their fear

That's the best way I can put it. I've known dozens of displaced southern rural white males who moved to Las Vegas to gamble because there was not much going on in their home town. They are all conservative and scared of everything. Fear is the overwhelming trait whenever I speak to them at length. This goes back to 1984. They are scared of blacks, scared of their guns being taken away, scared of Democrats raising taxes that they don't pay, and scared of government even though they couldn't tell you why.

Since Republicans own all the fear categories they think of Democrats as people to hate and distrust. I can't count how many times those guys reacted in disbelief when they found out I was a Democrat. It was like they had never met one before. When we started to talk politics they would say taxes and government and assume that would win any argument, that no other words were ever necessary.

Once in a while we'd talk at length and they'd concede there was an occasional Democrat they didn't despise. John F. Kennedy was light years atop that category. Somehow all of them knew he had lowered taxes. I never understood if they got that from school or family members or media, or elsewhere. They all knew it even if most of them were too young to have followed Kennedy's presidency. Consequently many of those southern rural guys told me, "Kennedy was the last good Democrat," or words to that effect.

They didn't fully hate Bill Clinton. I have to say that. They assumed Bush would win but the animosity toward Clinton was not close to the level I heard in prior or subsequent cycles.

Hillary Clinton was exactly the opposite. I always thought Hillary was likely to lose a close election in 2016, solely due to the overpowering hatred toward her from those rural males I knew from Las Vegas. Guys I hadn't heard from in years were calling or emailing me, mostly to turn the conversation to politics so they could rant against Hillary. Somehow she exploded the fear like no one else. Only when Republicans nominated Trump did I think Hillary might narrowly escape.

Those guys are so simplistic I don't think getting out among them will mean a damn thing. Republicans are great at parading some new fear term. Now it's elitism. So that will have a long shelf life.

I lived in las Vegas for 25 years. Countless statewide races have been lost in that state via some genius politician thinking he/she had to get out into the rural cow counties as opposed to simply prioritizing Clark County, where the votes are. Dina Titus versus Jim Gibbons would be a highlight example. The strategy described in the OP may be acceptable for small rural races only.

Those rurals will continue to be scared of females in high places. Roy Moore would have defeated any female. I hope we don't lose sight of that basic reality. You could have attached every Doug Jones speech and accomplishment to a female of identical caliber and no way she wins that race.

IMO our best option is to artificially steal a few vital percent here and there by nominating white males who look the part and speak plenty of basic language and patriotic stuff. It may not be fully satisfying but we won't lose any frustrated voters on our side, the ones who might prefer a strong female, but you will often swipe a crucial percent or two from the other side.

Jones won but I hope we don't ignore two aspects:

* He won very narrowly. So many of these races are exceptionally tight

* We won't win our share of the tight races if our split of the white vote remains where it is, let alone if it continues to slide