2020 Presidential Election: Biden v. Trump

[DeacMan]

No I'm not aware of that. Hillary just sucks though and I have a hard time believing that they're not all in for Trump because when I drive down a rural highway in NC or SC all I see is Trump signs.

2016 - 2004 - various rural counties. HRC laid a giant turd. Biden won't. Signs don't vote.

Hocking County OH - Clinton 29%, Obama ~49%, Obama 48%, Kerry 47%

Ross County OH - Clinton 34%, Obama, 49% Obama 45%, Kerry 44%

Meigs County, OH - Clinton 23%, Obama 40%, Obama ~40%, Kerry 41%

Door County, WI - Clinton 45%, Obama 53%, Obama 58%, Kerry 48%

Florence County, WI - Clinton 25%, Obama 37%, Obama 42%, Kerry 36%

Grant County, WI - Clinton 41%, Obama 56%, Obama 61%, Kerry 51%

Bayfield County, WI - Clinton 51%, Obama 62%, Obama 63%, Kerry 60%

Houghton County, MI - Clinton 38%, Obama 44%, Obama 47%, Kerry 42%

Muskegon County, MI - Clinton 47%, Obama 58%, 64%, Kerry 55%

Alpena County, MI - Clinton 33%, Obama 47%, Obama 51%, Kerry 47%

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Well begging them or asking them to vote in their best interests hasn't exactly worked.

So condescension and nagging haven’t been effective either. You might question why the people who you believe stand to benefit the most from American electoralism don’t have any faith in it, nor in their own ability to improve it. Occams Razor would posit that the people who benefit from voting, vote, and the people who don’t benefit from voting don’t vote.

 

[PhDeac]

So they don’t participate in American electoralism because they don’t have faith in it.

What do they participate in that they do have faith in?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

So they don’t participate in American electoralism because they don’t have faith in it.

What do they participate in that they do have faith in?

alcoholism, opioid addiction, obesity, Christianity, sports, the gig economy. All things with immediate and tangible results, with the exception of Christianity

 

[PhDeac]

alcoholism, opioid addiction, obesity, Christianity, sports, the gig economy. All things with immediate and tangible results, with the exception of Christianity

So how should that inform attempts to increase political engagement among poor rural Americans?

And I’d argue that Christianity and more specifically church attendance does have the immediate and tangible impact of helping people feel part of something bigger and working toward a long term payoff. It also improves social ties and available social support.

 

[Paul Hogan]

2016 - 2004 - various rural counties. HRC laid a giant turd. Biden won't. Signs don't vote.

Hocking County OH - Clinton 29%, Obama ~49%, Obama 48%, Kerry 47%

Ross County OH - Clinton 34%, Obama, 49% Obama 45%, Kerry 44%

Meigs County, OH - Clinton 23%, Obama 40%, Obama ~40%, Kerry 41%

Door County, WI - Clinton 45%, Obama 53%, Obama 58%, Kerry 48%

Florence County, WI - Clinton 25%, Obama 37%, Obama 42%, Kerry 36%

Grant County, WI - Clinton 41%, Obama 56%, Obama 61%, Kerry 51%

Bayfield County, WI - Clinton 51%, Obama 62%, Obama 63%, Kerry 60%

Houghton County, MI - Clinton 38%, Obama 44%, Obama 47%, Kerry 42%

Muskegon County, MI - Clinton 47%, Obama 58%, 64%, Kerry 55%

Alpena County, MI - Clinton 33%, Obama 47%, Obama 51%, Kerry 47%

I've never heard of those places.

 

[redwing42]

So, counterpoint. What if 2016 was not Clinton doing poorly in rural areas, but Trump doing well? What if no previous republican candidate spoke to them in the way that Trump did?

 

[deaconson]

Its truly baffling that Charlie Brown (dems) keeps playing football with Lucy (puds) and never learns they're playing by her rules.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

So how should that inform attempts to increase political engagement among poor rural Americans?

It’s difficult to answer that question because we’re starting at a presumed point of contention. People who vote, on the whole, believe it benefits them in some way. People who don’t vote, presumably don’t believe voting benefits them. What if they’re both right?

Increasing rural/poor/working class political “engagement” has to start with *first* changing a system which currently discourages their engagement. That challenge, for voters to change an establishment for the benefit of non-voters, gets at my main criticism of neoliberalism, expressed very concisely here

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Neoliberal incrementalism is a reactionary stance, by default. It’s especially frustrating because the Democratic parties largest advertisements are the type of major, radical accomplishments that it’s very proponents claim are impossible. It’s the 2020
Chicago bulls using Michael Jordan nostalgia to sell season tickets.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Neoliberal incrementalism is a reactionary stance, by default. It’s especially frustrating because the Democratic parties largest advertisements are the type of major, radical accomplishments that it’s very proponents claim are impossible. It’s the 2020
Chicago bulls using Michael Jordan nostalgia to sell season tickets.

i think it depends on whether or not you say "ad-vert-tis-ments" or "adver-tizements"

 

[PhDeac]

Neoliberal incrementalism is a reactionary stance, by default. It’s especially frustrating because the Democratic parties largest advertisements are the type of major, radical accomplishments that it’s very proponents claim are impossible. It’s the 2020
Chicago bulls using Michael Jordan nostalgia to sell season tickets.

That's a good point with an apt metaphor. It seems like your metaphor is saying that Dems run on protecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs that were "major, radical accomplishments" at that time. But you seem to be presuming these non-voters stay aware of these political struggles and actively don't vote because they don't see their needs being met. To continue your metaphor, that's like Chicago native who used to watch the Bulls in the 80s and 90s because they liked Michael Jordan. But they stopped watching the Bulls because the Bulls aren't good anymore.

I challenge that thesis because it presumes non-voters follow politics enough to know there's nothing in it for them. I think they just don't follow politics and choose to use their time doing other things. And if they don't follow politics, it's not worth it for them to vote. That's how you get voters who just dismiss the process as "both sides are the same." To continue the metaphor again, that's like someone saying they don't watch the NBA because they don't play defense.

 

[DeacMan]

So, counterpoint. What if 2016 was not Clinton doing poorly in rural areas, but Trump doing well? What if no previous republican candidate spoke to them in the way that Trump did?

Now go and look at the primary results in all the same places I listed. Bernie torched her with these same voters. Again, she was an awful candidate.

As for a GOP candidate outperforming see Reagan, Ronald - 1979 and 1980 - only he wasn't viewed as a complete fucking failure by the electorate once in office as evidenced by the fact he took 49 states in his re-election bid and won 59% of the popular vote. The one state he lost was Mondale's home state - which he lost by fewer than 4,000 votes.

 

[DeacMan]

I've never heard of those places.

Which is sort of the point. You could do the same exercise with any rural county in the Midwest and, likely, the nation. Clinton will have done similarly awful relative to other Dems running for President.

 

[Newenglanddeac]

 

[Newenglanddeac]

Jesus...these last two are dark ads.

 

[PhDeac]

Those two ads belong on the horror movie thread.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

What are their "best interests"? And how has it "not worked". It didn't work in 2016. It did work quite well in 2008. Again, 2016 is a big outlier. And many on the left presume to think it wasn't because of Hillary. Go back and look at results even from 2000. The same trends hold. She remains the outlier in terms of support with rural voters. She offered them nothing. Trump and Bernie came at them with populist messages.

You can scream that it was all smoke and mirrors. That's a different discussion/question than why did Clinton engage so poorly with such a large voting block.

Yes I wonder why a woman fared poorly in rural areas across the country.

 

[birdman]

Yes I wonder why a woman fared poorly in rural areas across the country.

Because half of rural Americans are a basket of deplorables?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

But you seem to be presuming these non-voters stay aware of these political struggles and actively don't vote because they don't see their needs being met.

I challenge that thesis because it presumes non-voters follow politics enough to know there's nothing in it for them. I think they just don't follow politics and choose to use their time doing other things. And if they don't follow politics, it's not worth it for them to vote. That's how you get voters who just dismiss the process as "both sides are the same."

In what way would someone need to “follow politics” to realize their needs aren’t being met? Are you saying that people are more satisfied with the state of the nation *because* they follow politics? I have to assume your referring to material needs. Not trying to be snarky here, but my paycheck stays the same no matter how much MSNBC I watch. Rachel Maddow isn’t covering her viewers health insurance premiums or helping out with daycare.