I spent election night in Garden City, Kansas, home of a large immigrant population who worked within the meat packing industry. The night of the election, many second and third generation immigrants gathered at a local Mexican restaurant to watch the results. Tears were shed as the night went on.
The next morning, I woke up in Scott City, my western Kansas home, to read the results. In nearby Wallace county, Hillary Clinton captured 6% (SIX PERCENT) of the vote. Trump had prevailed there with almost 90%. In nearby Great Bend, a community Obama lost but with over 30% of the vote, Hillary netted 19% of the vote.
The issue that resonated was largely about a strident “we’ve had enough” and a demand for change. I went to eat breakfast the next morning, and as the news broadcast Trump taking his first stroll as president elect, a worker turned to a friend in front of me at McDonalds and said “It’s shocking, I’m surprised he won” (something to that effect).. his friend turned to him, and these are the words I remember: “Those fuckers got what they deserve. This is what happens when you won’t stand for the damn national anthem”
And I thought: forget all the Bernie/Hillary rah-rah, these people who had identified as normal non-voters were not going to be swayed by anyone in this election. They had made up their mind months ago, they were hardened Republican voters.
There is a path forward, but everytime I read the thoughts of people about how to reach rural voters, I think: this is coming from someone who has no idea what rural communities are even about.
Krugman hints this may just be how it is for the future. So do others. They are wrong. Really wrong.
One of the mantras that has come out of this election cycle is that “well, you can’t win there so why bother!” damn this and that and all those people! And I want to point out a few things.. in those counties that did so poorly this time, they didn’t do as poorly in 2012. Oh, it was still bad in 2012, but not nearly as bad as it was in 2016.
So, for those that think racism and hatred are the reasons why we lose rural counties, I offer a thought. That message definitely ramped up some votes, but the lack of growth of Democratic voters or the loss of Democratic voters is truly the killer in rural counties. There are a few factors that lead to this happening, and I want to bring those up.
One of the problems Democratic party members have had in rural areas is that we do not talk TO them, we talk AT them. I can’t say this enough. As I read through posts and writings here on Daily Kos and elsewhere about how to reach rural voters, I often get the feeling the content is being written by someone who has never watched kids chase a thanksgiving turkey from the Knights of Columbus or watched kids pace around hoping their livestock would get a good judging in FFA.
We spend so much time talking AT them, that we often miss realities. As someone who worked with the Sanders campaign, I of course get a lot of messages from Sanders supporters who want to tell me things like “Bernie would have won Kansas”, or more directly “this is why we needed to oppose TPP more!!” What we fail to realize is that many of these voters were never open to consider the current message. The reality is we needed to tell Democratic members in these counties that yes, we were unlikely to win their county or state house seat - but we desperately needed their vote, and we would work hard to get it. We needed to make them feel involved rather than abandoned.
Last year, in following up a potential story I almost wrote for Daily Kos, I met a woman who was having trouble getting service for her disabled child. I asked her in the meeting: do you think Governor Brownback’s policies should be changed? She looked me straight in the eye and said: “What needs to change is these deadbeats who have kids for the welfare checks, they are stealing money from people who need it like my son.” The governor, in her viewpoint, likely wasn’t at fault, it was the damn “city people” who were stealing money and resources from someone who she knew actually needed it, whereas “those people” didn’t.
Oh, and about Trade Agreements..
Every Kansas Republican who ran for US Congress in 2016 supported TPP. Some loudly and in every way possible. Why not? Farm Bureau, one of the more powerful lobbying forces in rural America, was with them.
www.tnfarmbureau.org/...
A top U.S. trade official says now is the time for farmers to press their lawmakers to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement
Farm communities were pretty unified about the need for trade deals. They produce more agriculture than the US can absorb, and they need more of it to ship out of the country. What Trump did effectively was that he said “TPP is a bad deal.. I will get a better one!” It allowed rural communities to think: “damn Obama, saddling us with this bad trade deal… but I still need all my goods to get out of the country, Trump can negotiate a deal that is good for me..” They are not, as so many want to believe, ripped and eager to hear about “let’s end trade” they are eager to hear about trade deals that are lopsided in their favor; something that is unlikely to happen. Trump’s vague remarks allowed people on all sides of the issue to hear what they wanted to hear.
Voting power in rural communities matters.
I often hear this one from Democratic members: well, we just need to run up our numbers in the cities and… let me stop you right there. Let me explain how this works out.
In nearby states, Democratic party members in “safe” seats are so comfortable they often do not campaign. In the last four years, party members who faced a re-election and no opponent in a safe seat in the states I visit have:
- Taken a cruise out of the country in the month before election day.
- Had optional cosmetic surgery that sidelined them for several weeks.
- Went to vegas. In fact, vacation is so common that it doesn’t stand out and I could list pages of them.
The result? Well, turnout in those “big cities” doesn't always jump. And what does this mean to rural votes? Well, let me give an example:
A large county has about 80k eligible voters. Fantastic! It is a Democratic stronghold, reliably 60/40 Democratic. But only 54% of the voters turn out. So, let’s do the math:
80k*.54=43200 (rough) In a 60/40 split, you get 25,920 Democratic votes and 17,280 Republican votes.
A blowout! Fantastic. Democratic voting is to the positive 8,640.
Now, let’s take a rural Republican county. There are only 13k eligible voters. I mean, so small, right? But their turnout is about 75%. So, 9,600 people vote. And they vote 77 to 18%..
www.sos.ks.gov/…
i-Jill Stein 155 2% D-Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,823 18% L-Gary Johnson 344 3% R-Donald J. Trump 7,766 77%
The gap? 5,943.
Suddenly, a rural county with a population that is a drop in the bucket in comparison to a large metro area has just swallowed up the lead a metro area provided in a state wide. Why? Because their turnout percentage is higher and their victory is far more lopsided. Democratic candidates are happy knowing that they are guaranteed their job in a state house or US congress with a 60/40 win, and so they don’t press the advantage to turnout as many as possible — they don’t have to, they know they have prevailed. Republicans, however, even knowing they have no opponent, will work tirelessly to drive their numbers as high as possible.
And before you say: "that's Kansas” here is Pennsylvania: www.politico.com/…
Large Democratic counties went 60/40, more rural Republican counties? 70+/20. And that is the difference.
Democratic members who say “we can’t win there” are missing the point. If Democratic members had succeeded in a 60/40 split in that community rather than 77/18, the distance would have been far smaller, making it more sustainable to win a state wide.
Rural population demographics are changing. And we aren’t doing much to address that.
Many will point out the rise of minority populations in metro areas and comment that a much smaller percentage stay in rural communities. But the communities they are staying in are smaller, and many simply do not participate because they have never been given a reason to get involved.
Democratic party members can waste a whole lot of time trying to figure out how to convert the rural voter who is implacably against Democratic issues OR they can work to give people in those communities who have sat on the sidelines specific reasons to vote. Part of this is the way we address those communities. Again, talking TO them instead of AT them. Too often, rural Democratic party members get told by “influential party members” that their races don’t matter, and as a result, they don't show up to vote at all or we make pitiful efforts to make sure they are registered and connected.
If rural communities were Republican blowouts, but 60/40 blowouts, the Democratic party would win a lot more governor mansions, congressional seats and state houses back. I’ve spent time going through the data of several states, and we have to realize the problem isn’t just places like Kansas.. the problem exists in places like Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and almost everywhere else. Democratic party members have decided that the policy of running candidates in locations they are unlikely to win is a “waste of money and effort” as I was told, multiple times. The problem is, voters get that feeling too. If it is a waste of effort, why bother voting at all? If the party is openly telling you it just doesn’t matter, your state/district/seat is lost, why participate, then you do have an option: stay home.
Nowhere in America do we do more to depress our own voters than in rural communities. We also fail to work to make sure that the hidden population of second generation immigrants can find their way onto voter roles and participate in elections, something that should be a priority for us as a party, and something I and others have been working on for the last few years.
Part 1 final thoughts
I’m going to write three parts. They are going to be a bit long winded, but I’ve had time to think about this and talk to people who compile data and information so I can try to explain at least the vision I see for where the party should go in the future. If we want to be a national party, we must work to make sure that more voters who are with us participate, even in districts we may not be likely to win. If we can influence people to vote and make sure they participate, they can stay voters for a long time.. whether they stay in that community or move. If we fail to make sure that we give people a reason to vote affirmatively, a positive “we need your vote” then we don’t deserve to get their vote.
Tomorrow at 6PM CST: If we want to grow the party, it is going to cost. Invest now while we can.
Wednesday, Nov 30, 2016 · 5:25:46 AM +00:00 · Chris Reeves
Thank You — to all. Thank you for participating in this diary. It is after 11PM here in CST, so I’m off to sleep tonight. Please read the comments, I tried to participate where possible, and agree or disagree with commenters there are a lot of good thoughts there on all sides of the issues. I would want to point out a few things: I try to argue our key goal is to bring back Democratic voters who we know are there, but didn’t vote; they are the “low hanging fruit” we should grab, easily. But we also need an active plan. This isn’t about becoming rednecks or changing our positions. It is about making it more difficult to attack people as people who no one has ever met.
Tomorrow I’ll talk about cost to an individual and party; and Thursday what you, as Kossacks, should be doing like now. And if you haven’t, please find diaries on the Louisiana Senate race, which occurs December 10. Let’s make the effort.