Rural voters are pivotal but feel 'invisible' politically, Denver Post reports

The last four presidential elections have hinged, in part, on rural voters, but those rural residents continue to feel lost on the political landscape, reports Karen E. Crummy of The Denver Post.

Voting patterns from the past few decades of presidential elections show that the way rural voters divide along party lines can predict the overall vote.When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 and 1996, he grabbed almost 50 percent of rural votes, and George W. Bush took more than 60 percent in his 2000 and 2004 electoral victories.
"It shows that to win as a Republican, you need the lion's share of rural votes. For Democrats to win, you have to neutralize those voters," said Seth McKee, a University of South Florida professor who analyzed rural voters in presidential elections from 1992 to 2004.

Crummy writes, "Rural America remains conservative, with social issues in the forefront, but these voters are also consumed by economic concerns and the lack of job opportunities." She quotes Bess Isaacs, the 82-year-old owner of R.W. Isaacs Hardware in Torrington, Wyo.: "I've never voted a straight ballot. It doesn't take brains to vote across the board. . . . Right now I'm not impressed by either side."

Rich Campbell, a doctor in Torrington, told the Post, "You ask most of rural America, and they will say neither party has a vision or game plan for us. There is no respect for agriculture. No planning for our infrastructure. No understanding of the long distances people have to go to access medical care." (Read more)

Despite being an attractive bloc of swing voters, rural residents are overlooked often as a matter of logistics, Crummy reports. Rural voters are tougher to visit because they are scattered, and they account for about 5 percent of the donations to presidential candidates, according to a June 17 story in the Daily Yonder.