What exactly are we supposed to take away from this?
Part of the absurdities of the reaction to this book is a political scientist arguing that his research was misused, because he believes in rural "resentment," which he argues is giving rational agency to rural Americans, and is upset the author of the book calls it rural "rage," which he argues makes the rural Americans sound irrational.
That level of debate about jargon is showing how academics have lost their way.
Political science is showing that rural Americans, and those that consider themselves rural but live in exurbs or suburbs, have a heightened sense of identity with "ruralness" and that they perceive that way of life under assault.
It's good to contrast this with Matthew Yglesias's Slow Boring today discussing how the emphasis on negativity is making people and politics crazy.
The big thing from my perspective is that 35% isn't zero and that Biden was able to stem losses. There are a lot of candidates like Golden, MGP, Manchin, Tester that are still performing strongly with rural voters, including rural whites. Democrats need to take a margins approach, aiming to win rural voters by one or two points each cycle by not feeding into narratives that make voters think our party sees them as less than and running candidates with rural appeal. I love Slow Boring and agree that negativity in politics is the worst.
I really enjoyed your piece on Wisconsin! And you and Welcome are thinking similar about Wisconsin's 3rd. They flagged in as part of their "Win The Middle" project. https://www.welcomestack.org/p/dozen-for-democracy
As you say, the key here is showing Democrats care and working to improve our brand by running candidates that connect with rural voters.
The reality is that even for young people, healthcare costs are a much bigger issue that student loans, since everyone deals with healthcare and only a minority have student debt.
What exactly are we supposed to take away from this?
Part of the absurdities of the reaction to this book is a political scientist arguing that his research was misused, because he believes in rural "resentment," which he argues is giving rational agency to rural Americans, and is upset the author of the book calls it rural "rage," which he argues makes the rural Americans sound irrational.
That level of debate about jargon is showing how academics have lost their way.
Political science is showing that rural Americans, and those that consider themselves rural but live in exurbs or suburbs, have a heightened sense of identity with "ruralness" and that they perceive that way of life under assault.
It's good to contrast this with Matthew Yglesias's Slow Boring today discussing how the emphasis on negativity is making people and politics crazy.
The big thing from my perspective is that 35% isn't zero and that Biden was able to stem losses. There are a lot of candidates like Golden, MGP, Manchin, Tester that are still performing strongly with rural voters, including rural whites. Democrats need to take a margins approach, aiming to win rural voters by one or two points each cycle by not feeding into narratives that make voters think our party sees them as less than and running candidates with rural appeal. I love Slow Boring and agree that negativity in politics is the worst.
I really enjoyed your piece on Wisconsin! And you and Welcome are thinking similar about Wisconsin's 3rd. They flagged in as part of their "Win The Middle" project. https://www.welcomestack.org/p/dozen-for-democracy
As you say, the key here is showing Democrats care and working to improve our brand by running candidates that connect with rural voters.
I couldn't agree more on healthcare. All of the polling suggests that healthcare, not student debt and climate policy, is where Democrats need to message to win independents. https://blueprint2024.com/polling/general-election-starts-today/
The reality is that even for young people, healthcare costs are a much bigger issue that student loans, since everyone deals with healthcare and only a minority have student debt.