Democrats who want rural voters to switch sides need to 'show up' and fight for rural communities

Democrats need to fight harder than Republicans on
issues that impact rural Americans. (Rural Strategies photo)

Building trust with rural Americans by fighting hard for the issues rural voters care about is what Democrats need to do now, reports Mara Liasson of NPR.

While Democrats losing rural voters is not news, what Democrats should do about it is. Liasson explains, "Pollster Celinda Lake, originally from rural Montana, says she's watched as the Republican advantage with rural voters grew from a relatively narrow five-point advantage in 2000 to a whopping 25-point edge for Trump with rural voters in 2024."

Lake recently "conducted a poll of 600 likely general election voters from rural areas in battleground states," Liasson reports. "And what these voters had to say about Democrats is damning."

One polled voter said Democrats were "out of touch with middle America," according to Liasson. Another said Democrats were "lost in space. All they want to do is spend money and give stuff away."

Lake told Liasson, "The Democratic brand is in terrible shape in rural America." Lake pointed out that while most rural voters skew Republican, they are currently very dissatisfied with the economy, and that offers Democrats a window of opportunity.

"Her takeaway from the poll is that Democrats should be running to keep rural hospitals open and insulin prices down," Liasson reports. "In other words, Democrats don't have to change their positions to win rural voters. They just have to fight harder for what they already believe in."

Dee Davis, the president of the Center for Rural Strategies, the group that commissioned the poll, said that Democrats that go all in on rural issues can fight for the same concerns that more urban populations worry about. Liasson adds, "After all, college-educated urban voters also care about healthcare, gas prices and jobs. The strategy Davis thinks Democrats should adopt is not rocket science."

Davis told Liasson, "You got to show up. You got to talk to people. You might not win the first time out, but you got to be there and compete."

Opinion: The Congresswoman who is telling her party to step into the reality of 'regular people'

Gluesenkamp Perez

U.S. Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is a donkey of a different color. As a Democrat elected in a red district, she has worked to keep her finger on the pulse of her rural constituents while pointedly telling her party to step into the reality of "regular people," writes James Pogue in his opinion for The New York Times.

Gluesenkamp Perez believes our society "ought to be oriented toward working with your hands, living in nature and fostering deep and considered connection to a community," Pogue explains. "Her two biggest influences, her former senior adviser guessed, are the Bible and the ruralist Kentucky farmer-author Wendell Berry."

She has gone against her party with bold strokes by "voting against President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and repeatedly criticizing his administration’s incomprehensible border policy," Pogue adds.

While many Democratic lawmakers have, for decades, focused on data points and expert opinions to win over voters, Gluesenkamp Perez insists that pushing such singular thinking on rural and working-class Americans has created resentment and anger. 

At the Capitol, Gluesenkamp Perez has become the "most visible member of a small movement that has taken the name of the decades-old Blue Dog congressional caucus," Pogue explains. "The Blue Dogs have been arguing that Democrats cannot win over rural or working-class voters simply by studying them . . . . This little movement may well get driven out of the party before Democrats grasp what it’s truly offering."

President Donald Trump's MAGA supporters, who include many voters in rural America, see his administration’s immigration crackdowns and tariffs as "twin pillars in an attempt to create an economic system governed not by gross domestic product data and consumer spending, but by conservative values and nationalist geostrategic ends," Pogue points out. "'Kids don’t 'need 37 dolls,'" Mr. Trump has said. They should have 'three dolls or four.'"

Gluesenkamp Perez and Blue Dog partner Jared Golden, a Democrat from a deeply conservative Maine district, produce a podcast called “Blue Dog Radio" that strives to offer something different from MAGA: an approach that focuses on 'regular people' and the independent spirit many rural Americans hold dear. 

"Together, they’ve tried to articulate a friendly and Americana-inflected cultural politics 'for people who still believe in community, country and the common good,'" Pogue writes. "Coupled with an economic vision that is arguably more radical than programs offered by many leftists. It encompasses antimonopoly policies, right to repair and regulatory changes to smooth the path for people to start businesses, buy and work land, even build their own houses and invent things. . . "

Pogue's entire essay is here.

Democrats announce plan to 'win over voters in rural areas.'

It could take years for Democrats to see rural voter
 gains. (Adobe Stock photo)

In a bid to change its relationship with rural voters, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced a first-of-its-kind investment to "win over voters in rural areas — where the party has suffered deep losses in recent elections — in their effort to win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives next year," reports Ashley Lopez of NPR.

Committee members see the U.S. economy as a topic they can use to engage Trump-supporting and leaning rural voters by showing that Democrats have something better to offer.

Suzan DelBene, who chairs the DCCC, told Lopez, "I think Republicans are turning their back. They've been actively hurting rural communities with the policies they've put in place."

Anthony Flaccavento, co-founder and executive director of the Rural Urban Bridge Initiative, said "economic frustration among most voters could provide an opening for Democrats, and that rural voters tend to align with economically populist policies," Lopez explains.

While Democrats plan their eight-figure investment to make inroads with rural American voters through targeted campaigns and staff focused on rural issues, it's impossible to predict whether they will be able to generate a meaningful shift in rural opinion in the near future.

Lopez reports, "Flaccavento said winning back at least a slice of those rural voters is likely to be 'hard as hell' for Democrats. But, he said, it's a problem the party needs to confront head-on." Flaccavento is pushing for Democrats to make long-term investments in rural races over the next decade, not just the next couple of election cycles. 

Many rural folks scoff at the idea that Trump-law Medicaid cuts prompted their hospital's planned closure

Community Hospital is the only health clinic in Curtis. It will close in 
September. (Community Hospital photo)

A rural Nebraska hospital will close in September, and its CEO tied the closure to President Donald Trump's new Medicaid-cutting budget. "But residents of Curtis — a one-stoplight town in deep-red farm country — aren’t buying that explanation," reports Hannah Knowles of The Washington Post. Curtis resident April Roberts told her, "Anyone who’s saying that Medicaid cuts is why they’re closing is a liar."

How Medicaid cuts are received in Curtis could indicate a broader trend in rural America "where voters vulnerable to Medicaid cuts in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill law are reluctant to blame the president or congressional Republicans who approved it," Knowles explains. "Many people in Curtis have directed their frustration at their hospital system instead of their representatives in Washington."

Curtis is in Frontier County, Neb.
(Wikipedia map)

Some Democrats and health care advocates say the town's hospital closure is "a model of what’s to come for rural hospitals around the country," Knowles writes. "Close to half of rural hospitals nationwide already lose money, and analysts expect Trump’s tax and spending law to add more strain."

Community Hospital, the nonprofit owner of the Curtis Medical Center, "announced on July 2 — one day before the bill’s passage — that a confluence of factors had made its Curtis outpost unsustainable," Knowles reports. "It cited years-long financial challenges, inflation and 'anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid,' the public health insurance program for lower-income and disabled Americans."

Many Curtis residents "know that Trump’s bill will impose work requirements for Medicaid recipients," Knowles writes. "And some think — inaccurately — that the legislation was designed to end Medicaid coverage for undocumented immigrants."

Although Community Hospital had been losing money for years, the timing of Curtis closure announcement "has stoked suspicions in the town, leaving some residents convinced their health provider was using the president as a scapegoat," Knowles reports.

"Nationwide, far more people oppose Trump’s bill than support it in polling. . . . Even in Curtis, some unease at the Medicaid cuts is percolating," Knowles reports. Brenda Wheeler, a Republican and 2016-Trump voter, told Knowles, "When we talked about making America great again, I don’t think this is what we all had in mind." 

Tired of big-city decisions, rural counties in some states work to form their own governments

New Illinois activists encourage residents
to "leave Illinois without moving."

Voters in rural towns and counties are working to break away from their state's blue-voting big cities and create their own governments. The "breakup" process has already begun in Illinois and California and is gaining momentum in "other states where vast swaths of red, rural counties are dominated by a few blue cities," reports Joe Barrett of The Wall Street Journal. "More residents are pushing to break off and form new states. . . . A group called New Illinois State declared itself independent from actual Illinois and passed the first draft of a new constitution."

On Nov. 5, voters in rural Iroquois County, Illinois, "backed the idea of forming a new state with every Illinois county except Cook, home to Chicago and more than 40% of the state’s population," Barrett explains. "The nonbinding resolution also passed in six other counties," which means nearly 33% of the state's counties voted to leave the Chicago area behind.

Location of Iroquois County
in Illinois (Wikipedia photo)

Iroquois County resident and "new state" activist Phil Gioja, explained his motivation to Barrett, saying, "There’s a lot of people in Chicago, and I think that they make a lot of decisions that affect people downstate. It’s just sending a message that ‘Hey, you know, there’s people that would like to be part of the conversation, and often aren’t.’" Still, Gioja "doesn't expect a New Illinois anytime soon."

Even if counties were allowed to form separate states, it's uncertain that new states could financially survive without the funding they receive from bigger city revenues.

Counties working to "divorce" their bigger city counterparts and create new states face potentially messy uphill battles. "Becoming new states would require the consent of the existing legislatures — extremely unlikely in most blue states — as well as Congress," Barrett writes. Paul Preston, founder of the New California State, "plans to petition Congress for statehood based on the argument that the current California government is a one-party communist state, and technically, they have seceded from the Union already.'"

Preston's approach may seem ridiculous to some but "appealing to Congress is a strategy that could work," Barrett reports. Jason Mazzone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Illinois, who told Barrett, "It seems far-fetched. But we live in uncertain times. So if you’ve got the right people in Congress — and I don’t think we do have the right people in Congress — you could do it.”

Opinion: Many Americans didn't like either candidate for president, but maybe there's a better way to choose

Voting against what a candidate represents can 'yield
better results.' (Adobe Stock photo)

Before casting their vote, and maybe even after, many American voters voiced concern because they didn't like either candidate. But maybe liking a candidate isn't the point, writes essayist Amy Bauer in her opinion for The Wall Street Journal. Perhaps it's better to vote against a candidate or party instead of searching and voting for a "likable" one.

Her friends and family "all voted against Donald Trump and JD Vance or against Kamala Harris and Tim Walz," Baurer adds. "At a dinner party, I was lamenting this necessity and said, 'I’d love to see an election where voters are excited about the person they’re voting for.' A friend responded saying, 'I think this is optimal. An election where you vote against rather than for is more logical and less emotional. It yields better results.'"

Bauer writes, "I realized my friend had a point about the drawbacks of voting for a candidate. The last time I did so was in 2012. Barack Obama was smooth and kind and wicked smart. . . .Years later, the revelations about Obama started to emerge. Like old infidelities, each one was a slap. . .

"Voting for a candidate back then led me to soft criteria: charm, warmth, a quick smile. Ultimately, I felt disappointed and betrayed — the pitfalls of an emotional relationship. None of this is at play with Trump. I’m not looking for him to be charming or warm . . . I often dislike the things he says.

"His behavior on Jan. 6, 2021, was egregious, pure hubris, and it might have been disqualifying if not for the confounding response from Democrats, who seized on the event and used it to justify constitutional infringements from that day forward."

For some voters, a ballot cast for Trump and Vance equaled a vote to support those rights. Bauer explains, "More than anything, I cherish freedom of expression and believe it is our most spiritual right. Prayer, poetry, stories, music — they’re what lift us above this mortal space. . . . I’d rather die than live in a world without this freedom."

When Bauer spoke to her friend, she asked if he was happy about the election outcome. He told her, "Not exactly happy. But it was so much better than the alternative.”

Quick hits: Small-town murder mysteries; slower mail for rural residents; a new hearing aid; Halloween night skies

Rossif Sutherland and Kristin Kreuk star in the new Global/FOX series 'Murder in a Small Town.' (Global TVvia IMDb photo/The Daily Yonder)

There's nothing quite like small-town murder tales to get people glued to their television screens week after week. "The latest TV series on FOX puts its own spin on a genre that has stood the test of time," reports Keith Roysdon of The Daily Yonder. "We haven’t yet reached the point where it’s become obvious that something is very, very wrong in the town of Gibsons . . . . 'Murder in a Small Town' is good, dependable murder-of-the-week television, probably not dissimilar to how 'Murder, She Wrote' was perceived for most of its run."

In Lancaster County, Penn., Democrats see an opportunity even though the county typically votes Republican, "the demographics are shifting here and throughout the state," report Campbell Robertson and Robert Gebeloff of The New York Times. "Pennsylvania is arguably the most pivotal state in the election, carrying 19 electoral votes, the most of the so-called swing states. After voting for the Democrat in every presidential election going back to 1992, the state went for Donald J. Trump in 2016 by less than a percentage point. Joe Biden won in 2020, by a little over a percentage point."

Jim and Sharon Erwin enjoy the natural beauty of
 Gunnison, Colo. (Photo by Jim Erwin via WSJ)

As baby boomers head into retirement, some choose to resettle in rural places for reasons that range from cutting costs to living closer to natural attractions. "The move to remote mountain and lake areas is helping reverse a long decline in the rural population. From April 2020 to July 2023, the rural counties retirees flocked to grew 4% versus less than 1% for rural America as a whole," report Anne Tergesen and Veronica Dagher of The Wall Street Journal. 

If slower is cheaper, is that OK? That depends. "The U.S. Postal Service is moving forward with a plan to slow down delivery for a relatively small portion of mail, telling its regulator the changes would save nearly $4 billion annually and better reflect the evolving nature of mail usage," reports Eric Katz of Route Fifty. Advocates for rural residents say the change will disproportionately affect mail delivery and pickup in more remote areas. Liz Carey of The Daily Yonder reports, "The plan would eliminate evening mail pickup in rural and remote areas, which could affect delivery times for areas that are more than 50 miles from a large USPS regional processing facility."

Apple's AirPods Pro 2 with hearing aid feature
(Apple photo via Wired)

Over-the-counter hearing aids seemed like a "cheaper and more accessible [solution] for people with mild to moderate hearing loss. Instead, people are returning them at high rates," reports Julie Jargon of The Wall Street Journal. "Doctors lauded the move as a solution for over 20 million American adults who have hearing loss that isn’t severe enough to warrant expensive prescription devices. In reality, many go for $1,500 to $2,000 . . . . The struggles come as Apple prepares to release a potential game-changer — a software update that will turn its popular, $249 AirPods Pro 2 into hearing aids."

This year's spooky season will be topped off by rarely-seen cosmic visitors. "In the days leading up to Halloween, Tsuchinshan-ATLAS, also known as Comet C/2023 A3, will be at its brightest, and likely visible to the naked eye. . . just look to the western sky shortly after sunset. As the days pass, the comet will get fainter and move to a higher part of the sky," reports James Wray for The Conversation. "The second comet, C/2024 S1 (ATLAS), should be visible around the end of October. The comet will pass closest to Earth on Oct. 24 – look low in the eastern sky just before sunrise. Then, after swinging around the Sun, the comet may reappear in the western night sky right around Halloween."

Opinion: Iowa editor considers where Americans can 'find center again' after this year's elections

Art Cullen

By Art Cullen

Editor, The Storm Lake Times

What comes after Nov. 5? Most Americans and the betting markets believe that Kamala Harris will win the election. . . . No matter what happens, we need to find center again. Quick like.

What the Republic cannot endure, and which gives enemies of freedom oxygen, is the contempt that has taken hold American-to-American.

We talk past each other and grow apart.

How do we talk to the other side?

We know what we want in Iowa: clean air and water, safe schools that teach you how to be a citizen, good food and good basketball, smooth roads and friendly neighborhoods, easy access to comprehensive and affordable health care. The ability to prosper. That’s pretty much it.

We’re not getting what we deserve, except for the basketball.

Trump and Harris voters can agree on that. So we should start there.

Farmers who vote Republican are not gung-ho for pipelines going wherever the power brokers would like, and neither are environmentalists. Each likes supporting more on-farm conservation. White males and Black women are suspicious of unchecked corporate power. A lot of union members will vote Republican for a whole host of reasons, but find common cause with Democrats on basic human equity.

We all want to strengthen rural healthcare. We like independent producers and businesses. . . . It’s not as if there is not common ground. . . . Right-to-repair is not left or right. Neither is enforcement of anti-trust laws. . . . We all recognize that it is tough to fill jobs in food and agriculture because it’s tough work. Nobody expects to get rich, but they expect respect and a wage that lets them get ahead.  

This is why people are anxious and don’t think that things are working their way. They’re not. Things work for people with a firm grip on power. We can organize ourselves around how to make our place better, instead of how we can lock up our adversaries.

It starts with city hall, the courthouse and the school house. It starts by us talking about issues and confronting power that prevents progress. It starts by listening. . .

Art Cullen is the editor of the The Storm Lake Times in Storm Lake, Iowa, covering Buena Vista County and parts of neighboring Clay, Pocahontas, Sac, Ida and Cherokee counties. This opinion was lightly edited.

Opinion: When even 'losing by less' helps, Democrats must engage rural voters. Wisconsin's Baldwin shows the way.

Tammy Baldwin campaigning in the Badger state.

If Democrats want to gain votes in rural America, they need to be present to win. In tight races, even cutting into Republican margins can swing an election -- "Just ask Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin," writes Karen Tumulty in her opinion for The Washington Post.

Last year, Baldwin kicked off her re-election campaign in conservative Richland County, Wisconsin, where Trump soundly won in 2020. But Baldwin also won the county. She's had a history of reaching out to rural communities, listening to their issues and touting her wins. Tumulty adds, "She cites bringing home $1.1 billion in federal funds to expand high-speed internet across Wisconsin and millions more to address the shortage of available child care that is particularly acute in rural areas."

Baldwin's strategic success with rural voters may be unusual, but other Democrats are catching on. "This year, Democrats up and down the ticket are waking up to something Baldwin recognized long ago: That Democrats cannot afford to ignore rural America, even as it has swung harder to the right," Tumulty adds. 

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who joined Baldwin's "One Year to Win” state tour kickoff, told Tumulty, “Elections in my state and here in Wisconsin often come down to a percentage point or less. You got to show up everywhere. You got to make sure that you’re meeting people where they are in communities like this that maybe historically haven’t voted your way.”

The Harris-Walz ticket also has taken from Baldwin's playbook. Tumulty writes, "They've made a point of campaigning in places like southern Georgia and western Pennsylvania, where they have little chance of winning outright but hope to cut into Trump’s margins. . . . It is the rare Democratic politician like Baldwin who can still win in rural areas. But in battleground states where polls show the race as tight as it is, even losing by less could make all the difference."

Opinion: 'Rural rage' book gets most things wrong but pinpoints how political strength can help rural 'plight' be seen

Bradyn Strawser

Writer Bradyn Strawser discusses the good, the bad and the ugly roots of 'rural rage' and how he interprets some national research on the topic. An edited version of some of his thoughts is below.

"In the months leading up to the 2020 presidential election, the Democratic Party claimed that their platform was going to be one of unity. They said it was time to turn the page on the toxicity that had defined American political discourse since that fateful moment when Donald Trump descended on the escalator in 2015, initiating his first presidential campaign," Strawser explains. "What went wrong? A good place to begin answering this question might be White Rural Rage.

"The subtitle, The Threat to American Democracy, makes the anti-rural sentiments of authors Tom Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland, and Paul Waldman, a former op-ed writer for the Washington Post, quite clear," Strawser adds. Schaller and Waldman spend a lot of words "pointing out that countless other demographics suffer more than rural whites. It seems the authors are not interested in the plight of rural America."

One of Schaller and Waldman's biggest questions was: Why did rural Americans vote so enthusiastically for Trump? "They conclude it is because Trump tapped into all the worst instincts of rural Americans," Strawser adds. "But this is not why Trump resonated with so many of my neighbors and loved ones. He resonated with them because despite all the inflated political power Schaller and Waldman claim rural America has. . . .Trump was the first president in many years that seemed to listen [to] and care."

Some of rural rage stems from being politically ignored. "Countless rural communities suffered from loss of industry, lack of education, and military intervention in foreign lands," Strawser explains. "Rural Americans have felt abandoned as both parties voted in trade deals like NAFTA and promoted immigration policies that acquiesced to large corporations’ demands for new sources of cheap labor, a push which was supported by many labor unions."

Part of why rural Americans feel rage is because they have counted their losses and started asking questions. "They want to know why they are not entitled to a quality education," Strawser writes. "Why should they support politicians who send their jobs overseas and then receive money from the very corporations that laid off their employees? . . . Trump seemed to provide answers to these questions. His pro-school choice stance and promotion of opportunity zones that used tax incentives to increase investment in depressed census tracts. . . resonated with rural people."

While Schaller and Waldman take their keen minds and come to some harsh and misguided conclusions, "they do a good job at pointing out problems facing rural America, perhaps none more serious than the opioid crisis that is poisoning rural Americans every day," Strawser writes. "I think they are correct about one [other] thing: it is time for rural Americans to wield their political power to finally get policies that are in their interest. It’s time that they demand their plight be heard."

Bradyn Strawser studied political science and history at Grove City College, Penn. To read Strawser's full essay, click here.

If he wants their votes, Tim Walz will have to dig deep to connect with the needs of rural voters and win their trust first

A Harris-Walz camo hat (Campaign photo)

Just because Tim Walz sports a camo hat and comes from a small town doesn't mean rural people will vote for him. It's "hard to deny that many rural advocates and writers genuinely feel seen and represented with the choice of Walz – a feeling not felt in quite some time," writes Nicholas Jacobs for The Conversation. "But a closer examination reveals that such expectations may be overly simplistic and optimistic."

Media coverage of Walz as a "corn dog-eating, dad-joking, 'Midwestern Nice' [guy] does little to explain the real issues that have made rural voters a sizable force in recent American elections," Jacobs explains. "Walz’s performance within his home state of Minnesota is a relevant bellwether for his national appeal among rural voters. Though Walz has deep rural roots, rural voters have not always supported him as much as his backstory might quickly suggest. . . . Walz’s performance has decreased among rural voters since he last ran for reelection to Congress in 2016."

Looking around the Midwest for Democrats that do well in rural counties, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and "even Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer outperformed Walz’s rural numbers," Jacobs writes. But Walz is a "clear counterbalance to the image constructed by another Midwestern, self-proclaimed spokesperson for rural America on the ballot: JD Vance." Democrats would do well to remember that Trump has never claimed to hail from rural roots, but instead, he taps into "the sentiments of rural discontent and align them with his broader political message."

To win support from rural residents, Walz will need to address deeper issues "that motivate rural voters, such as economic insecurity, perceived cultural marginalization and distrust in government," Jacobs adds. "Symbolic gestures – and camo hats – alone are not sufficient to sway their support."

Fact check at the Democratic National Convention: Harris' acceptance speech lacked detail but still strayed from facts

Photo by Nils Huenerfuers, Unsplash

Last week the Democratic National Convention rallied around Kamala Harris and her choice for vice president, Tim Walz of Minnesota. The four-day event culminated in Harris giving her 40-minute nomination acceptance speech, which included more rhetoric than checkable facts. 

Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post reviewed several claims from Harris' acceptance speech, which are edited and highlighted below. For the Post's complete fact-check story, click here.

Note: The Rural Blog previously posted a fact-check story on the Republican National Convention. 

“We are not going back to when Donald Trump tried to cut Social Security and Medicare.”
This is mostly false. . . . But that hasn’t stopped Democrats from asserting this all week. On Medicare, virtually all anticipated savings sought by Trump would have been wrung from health providers, not Medicare beneficiaries, as a way of holding down costs and improving the solvency of the old-age health program. Trump, in fact, borrowed many proposals from Barack Obama, who had failed to get them through Congress. . . . As for Social Security, Trump kept his promise not to touch retirement benefits, bucking longtime efforts by Republicans to raise the retirement age.

(Trump) doesn’t actually fight for the middle class. Instead, he fights for himself and his billionaire friends, and he will give them another round of tax breaks that will add up to $5 trillion to the national debt.
The numbers don’t tell the whole story. Harris’s $5 trillion figure reflects the cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts. (The Congressional Budget Office estimated $4.6 trillion.) Because of the way the law was written, the tax cuts expire in 2027 and, unless Congress acts, Americans would face a steep tax increase. . . . By wanting to extend some of the tax cuts, Harris is acknowledging that a good chunk — as much as half — of Trump’s tax cuts benefited the middle class.

(Trump) intends to enact what, in effect, is a national sales tax. Call it a Trump tax that would raise prices on middle-class families by almost $4,000 a year.
This is a high estimate. Trump suggested he wants to impose a 10% tax on every imported good entering the United States and a 60 percent tax on every imported good from China. The Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated that this would cost a typical U.S. household in the middle of the income distribution about $1,700 in after-tax income. . . . Harris is relying on an estimate from the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund, which calculates the cost would be $3,900.

“As commander in chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”
Harris. . . has not put out detailed policy papers yet, but it’s worth noting that Biden repeatedly proposed budgets that have failed to keep military spending ahead of inflation.

“He encouraged [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to invade our allies, said Russia could, quote, do whatever the hell they want.”
This needs context. Harris carefully uses the word “encouraged” in this passage. Trump did not issue an invitation to Russia to invade U.S. allies, but (in his telling) was informing the leader of a NATO member country that he would not defend that country from a Russian attack if Trump deemed the nation was delinquent on payments to the military alliance. . . . NATO figures show that the defense expenditures for NATO countries other than the United States have been going up — in a consistent slope — since 2014. . . . When NATO decided to boost spending in response to Russia’s seizure of Crimea.

Opinion: Walz is a hunter, a former soldier, and a 'rural for real' man on the Democratic ticket

Art Cullen

This opinion piece by Art Cullen, editor of the Storm Lake Times Pilot in Iowa, has been gently edited for Rural Blog brevity.

"Kamala Harris and the Democrats do well to have Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on their national ticket as the vice-presidential nominee. He’s rural, for real. Walz has broad appeal in Upper Midwest battleground states, is well-versed in the you-betcha vernacular, and is well-suited in Carhartt with a camo cap. . . . Somehow Walz figured out a way to win a congressional seat in a red district around Mankato and ultimately the governorship.

"Republicans will have a hard time defining the former master sergeant in the Army National Guard as an out-of-control elite liberal. He is an expert marksman, claims he is a better pheasant shooter than his counterpart JD Vance, and suggests that vegetarians should eat turkey since it is not really meat. He hails from West Point, Neb., from whence you can almost see South Dakota, and once got popped for drunk driving as a young school teacher and coach. [He] gave up on drinking under his wife’s advice.

"Walz subscribes to the standard Democratic orthodoxy — pro-choice, supports gay rights, believes in feeding children at school, champions a living wage and backs labor unions. . . Walz favors some gun controls, as Ronald Reagan did. . . . [He's] pretty much your White Midwestern dad dude who coached Mankato West to a state football title.

"As a congressman, Walz was a staunch advocate for ethanol and biodiesel, which creates immense water quality problems in southern Minnesota and Iowa. As governor, he made way for pipelines supported by union pipefitting brethren. As vice president, he could focus attention on rural areas left behind by the bicoastal economic expansion. He could make a difference in trying to reorient agriculture toward a more diverse production system that is resilient against economic and climatic extremes.

"Rural America is more than resentful people in red caps. It’s the complicated challenge of feeding the hungry while not despoiling the richest land in the world. It’s people with ambition and ideas held down for generations by corporate power with little regard for community. Walz gets it. That could be a powerful antidote to the decline of political choice . . .

"Rural communities struggling to survive need an alternative, something other than simply more tax cuts and lousy roads and rivers choking in toxins. . . . The Harris campaign will task Walz with campaigning in Wisconsin, Michigan and western Pennsylvania. . . . Simply having a candidate on the national ticket who actually baled hay under the Nebraska sun should buck us up."

An Oregon Democrat won working-class votes in a 'red' U.S. House district; she wants more 'normal people' to be elected

Gluesenkamp Perez would like more 'normal people' elected
into Congress. (Marie Gluesenkamp Perez press photo)

As Democrats look for ways to regain footing with working-class voters, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from a previously red district in Oregon, is a living example of changes her party may need to embrace if it wants to gain votes from people who "work for a living," writes Jason Zengerle for The New York Times. "Before she was elected to Congress, in 2022, Gluesenkamp Perez ran an auto-repair shop with her husband; her professional and personal acquaintances still largely consist of people who work in the trades — construction, carpentry, woodworking."

Gluesenkamp Perez doesn't think or act like many other politicians. Zengerle explains, "She hired her legislative director, in part, because the woman drove a Toyota Camry with 200,000 miles on it. 'That says a lot,' Gluesenkamp Perez explains. But what really sets her apart is the way she thinks about the federal government itself — which she believes is woefully out of touch with the needs of working-class Americans."

She has given voice to issues that reflect the needs of those who voted her into office. "While her opponent [Joe Kent] asserted that the 2020 election was stolen and that Dr. Anthony Fauci belonged in prison, she focused on the concerns of the community she knew," Zengerle adds. "Her biggest issue was pushing for 'right to repair' laws, which mandate that consumers have access to repair tools for everything from their smartphones and home medical devices to their cars and tractors." Gluesenkamp Perez told Zengerle: “We’re more and more surrounded by these black boxes that we have no influence over. I think it’s the American ethos that we know how to fix [expletive].”

While working-class connections got her into Congress, Gluesenkamp Perez found it hard to connect with her fellow politicians. "One of the few friendships she did strike up was with Jared Golden, a third-term Democratic representative from Maine," Zengerle writes. Golden's history included becoming leader of the Blue Dog Coalition when only seven members remained. "As the head of the Blue Dogs, he recruited Gluesenkamp Perez and Mary Peltola, who represents Alaska’s lone House district, to be his co-chairs. . . .The new Blue Dogs wanted to make it possible for more people like themselves ('normal people,' Gluesenkamp Perez calls them), from more districts like theirs, to get elected to Congress."

But standing up and speaking her mind has yet to have the legislative impact Gluesenkamp Perez wants. "The signature bills she has introduced or supported — table saws, right to repair, one to expand Pell grants to cover skills training at community colleges — are stuck in legislative purgatory," Zengerle explains. Her "biggest problem at the moment is Joe Kent, who is running again. This time, of course, Trump will also be on the ballot, which means Gluesenkamp Perez will need a good number of ticket-splitting voters to stay in office."

Some say she can't win re-election. To that end, she said: “All of the eggheads and all of the economists and all of the statisticians said we couldn’t do what we did. But you all showed up, and you believed it. Nobody saved us but us.”

Opinion: American social norms and buffers are endangered as leaders 'behave without moral authority'

'Civil discourse and engaging with those with whom
you disagree' used to be an American norm. (Adobe photo)

With the next U.S. presidential election less than six months away, most Americans expect to see probable candidates such as Donald Trump campaigning across the country. But Trump has not been focused on stumping. Instead, he has been in court where Americans have seen and read coverage of his efforts to "buy the silence of a porn star on the eve of the 2016 election," writes Thomas L. Friedman in his opinion for The New York Times. While this case may not be the most critical case against him, this case "more than any of the other cases is revealing of a trend ailing America today: how much we’ve lost our moorings as a society."

Friedman uses mangroves as a metaphor for what used to support U.S. social systems. In nature, "mangroves filter toxins and pollutants through their extensive roots. . . .They create nurseries for young fish. . . . They literally help hold the shoreline in place . . . .One of the saddest things that has happened to America in my lifetime is how much we’ve lost so many of our mangroves. They are endangered everywhere today — but not just in nature."

Friedman writes, "All those things that used to filter toxic behaviors, buffer political extremism and nurture healthy communities and trusted institutions for young people to grow up in and which hold our society together. . . . Locally owned small-town newspapers used to be a mangrove buffering the worst of our national politics. A healthy local newspaper is less likely to go too far to one extreme or another because its owners and editors live in the community."

Expressing shame for misdeeds used to be a mangrove that protected social norms. Friedman writes, "To be clear: People in high places doing shameful things is hardly new in American politics and business. What is new, Dov Seidman, the author of the book How: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything, told Friedman, 'is so many people doing it so conspicuously and with such impunity.' . . . That is what erodes norms. . . . Nothing is more corrosive to a vibrant democracy and healthy communities, added Seidman, than 'when leaders with formal authority behave without moral authority.'"

Opinion: As new generations move into American politics, changes could 'actually erase' social polarization

Younger generations share more common views.
(Adobe Stock photo)

Will the U.S. ever reach a less polarized political environment? New research indicates that as power transitions to new generations, present tensions may ease, write Sally Friedman and David Schultz for The Conversation, a journalistic platform for academics. "The rise of younger generations to political power may actually erase the deep social divisions associated with polarization. . . . That's one of the strong possibilities for the future suggested by the diverse array of findings of our research."

Friedman and Schultz explain: "For the past 30 years, baby boomers (those born roughly between 1946 and 1964) and members of the Silent Generation (those born between 1925 and 1945) have driven and defined American politics. For the most part, the Silent Generation and the older baby boomers were the core of the Republican Party. The younger baby boomers, along with many Gen Xers (born roughly between 1965 and 1981), formed the core of the Democratic Party."

It's worth noting that millennials (born between 1982 and 1995) and Gen Z (born between 1996 and 2013) have emerged as significant political forces. Their liberal leanings and strong support for the Democratic Party have been instrumental in securing Democratic election victories in 2018, 2020, and 2022, particularly in swing states.

Millennials and Gen Zers, who are less defined by party choice, will replace the previous generations, which "may lessen polarization" caused by strict party affiliation.

Over the last 50 years, more Americans have come to define themselves as left or right-wing, with fewer identifying in the broader middle. However, the current partisanship may subside as new generations move into the political forefront. "Younger generations are more likely to self-identify as liberal. As we and others explain in several chapters of our book, surveys show they are more liberal on a whole range of issues regarding social matters, the economy, immigration and climate change," Friedman and Schulz write. "The consensus on political views among members of these younger generations means there is potential for decreasing polarization."

Opinion: We were friends for years, but our different views about Donald Trump tore us apart

Art Cullen

This opinion piece by Art Cullen, editor of the Storm Lake Times Pilot in Iowa, was first published as a guest essay by The New York Times. 

I miss my friends. We lost one another somewhere along the way, through the pandemic and politics of the last few years, old boys who had known one another since Little League and caught boatloads of walleyes together on Storm Lake in Iowa.

We gathered around a pool table a couple of times a week for many years to see where the fish were biting, to learn who is putting up that building on the edge of town and to exaggerate exploits of days gone by. Our political discussions were limited to Hawkeyes (University of Iowa) versus Cyclones (Iowa State) football or how city hall don’t know siccum.

There were complaints that Barack Obama wanted to take our guns. And that those idlers ought to get a job and quit complaining. And that a little guy couldn’t compete in the trades anymore when the big outfits hired undocumented labor to underbid them on local jobs.

But it was mainly jokes shouted over classic rock. If things got too heavy, our resident sage, Rooster, would commandeer the discussion and suck all the oxygen from the room with a rant about how most of the world’s problems could be solved or at least avoided if weed were legal.

Illustration by Gabriel Carr, NYT

Not even Rooster could talk over Donald Trump. A would-be tyrant holed up at a Florida golf course with a bunch of sycophants changed the conversation in our metal shed. Its walls could not ward off the bombardment of propaganda, lies and false fears fostered by a half century of justifiable frustration wrought by consolidation, decline and loss.

The pandemic kept us away. I was lonely. I visited Rooster at his little bachelor shack and watched “Wagon Train” reruns. He wasn’t feeling the best. We got back to shooting pool, though it wasn’t long before Rooster laid down his guns and died. Cancer got him fast. It should have shaken us straight, but hell sort of broke loose. Arguments started over vaccines and masks and Mr. Trump. The rodeo clown was no longer there to distract the raging bull set loose by the bombardment.

So, I quit shooting.

One of my old friends, or shall I say acquaintances, recently said on Facebook that I lacked integrity after I posted an editorial from our newspaper complaining about Mr. Trump’s contempt for the democratic process and rule of law. I’ve been a community newspaper editor for decades and no stranger to controversy, having angered the agribusiness gods and endured their reprobation, but I have to say that barb stuck. Our mothers were good friends. They would not have spoken that way about each other, at least in public.

We’re old enough for Social Security and to recall scooping the loop in a jacked-up Chevelle waiting for “Beaker Street” to beam over the AM airwaves from Little Rock, Ark. Or how you used to bring your shotgun to Storm Lake High School and leave it in your locker so you could bag a pheasant in a freshly picked cornfield after school. Rush Limbaugh took over AM, and the shotgun gave way to the assault rifle.

You would think we could see around our differences. We can’t. We’ve been programmed by nonstop propaganda, especially those of us in Iowa besieged by presidential campaigns and the wedge issues they drill home. Instead of trying to hash things out, I just quit trying. My bad. I got tired.

Small-town hacks learn who their friends are. We publish uncomfortable facts of public interest and opinions that often go against the grain. Businesses stop advertising because you wrote about their lawsuit. That I get. It’s a hazard of the occupation that I regret every day. You pledge to do better even when you have done nothing wrong.

The ad hominem attacks have become the norm, especially since Mr. Trump took center stage and refused to exit. We went from Iowa Nice to Iowa Nasty. We’re stuck there whether Mr. Trump leaves or hangs around. That’s my lament.

You can’t just talk about the weather anymore, or how to smoke a trout, or compliment Solo on his pickled Polish sausage. You make new friends but they don’t necessarily replace the ones you lost right here in your hometown. I text my buddy in New York nearly every day, but I can’t shoot pool with him. I still shoot pool with Solo, our retired pressman, in the bubble of our former pressroom. He kind of liked Representative Steve King at one time because he took on the Establishment. I differed. We sweated a lot together, slinging ink, even bleeding a little, for the truth at 15,000 impressions per hour. That’s worth more than Steve King.

I know where I live. Northwest Iowa is a frozen slice of Texas, one of the most conservative places in the country. I guess I am what you call woke because I don’t think immigrants are the problem; I think income — lack of it — is the problem. All this talk about bathroom bills and book bans is one giant distraction from how global corporations have stolen our franchise. I am not the enemy of the people, dude — we were in Cub Scouts together.

Rooster would have pointed that out in an outrageous way, and he would have ridiculed us all for being that stupid and blind. We would have laughed and cracked another cold one, and grabbed some more of that trout. Those were the days.

Art Cullen is the editor of The Storm Lake Times Pilot and author of “Storm Lake: A Chronicle of Change, Resilience, and Hope From a Heartland Newspaper.”

Do party endorsements change school board elelctions? An analysis of 10 states looks at board elections and outcomes

In 2023, most school board election winners did not have party endorsements. (Ballotpedia graph)

School board elections are primarily non-partisan, but some include candidates with party endorsements, which may provide "helpful information regarding candidates' stances and policy positions," Ballotpedia reports. However, endorsements and party affiliations can shift an election's focus onto narrow issues, which can change voter experience and election outcomes.

Ballotpedia covered every 2023 school board election and endorsements in 10 states: Colorado, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, which held 5,254 elections for 8,758 school board seats.

Democratic candidates had the most endorsements, and "among the top 10 endorsers, seven were liberal, and three were conservative," Ballotpedia reports. "The top liberal endorsers had a 68% win rate in contested elections, on average, compared to a 48% win rate among the top conservative endorsers."

"Most winning candidates received no endorsements," Ballotpedia analysis showed. "Of the 8,758 seats up for election, candidates with no endorsements won 73%, followed by liberal candidates with 15%, and conservative candidates with 11%."

Separate from endorsements, candidates can have party affiliations. Of the 10 states covered, Ballotpedia "identified that Democratic and Republican wins primarily came from districts where those parties made up a majority or plurality of voters. This remained the case both in Pennsylvania, where school board elections are partisan, and in Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, where candidates' party affiliations do not appear on the ballot."

To read more analysis accompanied by descriptive graphs and national maps by Ballotpedia, click here.

Campaigning with rural policy messages could 'move the needle' in swing states, a new poll suggests

First page of poll results via The Daily Yonder

For campaigns looking to attract swing voters, rural Americans offer a surprising opportunity to "move the needle" in battleground states, a new poll by the Center for Rural Strategies and Lake Research Partners suggests. "The findings provide a potential new and more effective roadmap for candidates vying for seats in state legislatures, Congress, and the White House ahead of the 2024 elections," reports Will Wright of The Daily Yonder. "The survey suggests as many as 37% of rural voters are swing, blue-collar voters who could be swayed by the right policy proposals and messaging."

Pollsters for The Center for Rural Strategies and Lake Research Partners, a Democratic research firm, "interviewed a weighted sample of 500 likely voters in rural zip codes in 12 states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, and Georgia," Wright explains. "They asked rural Americans how they feel about their place in the economy and how their feelings intersect with modern politics. . . . While partisanship remains strong among the rural electorate, voters were aligned on many of their chief concerns: affordable housing, the high cost of food, and corporate greed."

Overall, the poll indicated three primary points of concern: "Lowering prices; bringing good-paying jobs to local communities; and a populist message focused on corporate greed — received such broad support that they rivaled voters’ agreement on core values like family and freedom," Wright reports. 

Among those polled, "(Joe) Biden was viewed unfavorably by 66% of respondents, while (Donald) Trump was viewed unfavorably by 48%. And while the rising cost of living was the top issue for people aligned with both parties and for independents, Republicans were also more likely to put that as their top issue." Wright reports. "Pollster Celinda Lake said the poll revealed the potential for Democrats to perform much better in rural areas than they might otherwise believe. . . . Dee Davis, president of the Center for Rural Strategies, said the effectiveness of policy messages shows a path forward. . . . While many candidates focus heavily on suburban areas where voters are viewed as more persuadable, the polling suggests rural areas may be well worth the time and money."

Read complete poll results here.

Opinion: Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin seems to have picked the lock on split-ticket voters

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Photo by Elizabeth Frantz, The Washington Post)

Democrats have longed for a way to recapture rural voters. Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post looks at how U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is winning over some of the state's swing voters and setting an example for fellow party members.

"One of the most progressive members in the Senate, has figured out how to turn her narrowly divided state into a place where, with the right message, Democrats can notch a big win," Rubin writes, relaying an anecdote shared by Baldwin: "At a roundtable at a dairy farm, she met with a crowd that doesn't frequently vote for Democrats. One voter needled her a bit. 'Is that your truck out there?' she asked. 'Well, I have one just like it.' Touting her support for rural development and infrastructure, she said, 'Potholes aren't red or blue.' Asked after the event if he would vote Republican, the voter said no. 'Did you listen to her? She's working on my issues.'"

That is the point: Baldwin goes where too few Democrats go, engages with persuadable voters, and her responses are relatable. "On a given issue, she shows an issue can 'break through.' And for her, those issues mean keeping the interests of the dairy industry and, more generally, rural America front and center," Rubin writes. "She pointed out that there are about 170,000 lead water lines in Wisconsin. To eliminate 'that grave danger for children whose brains are developing' would cost a rural community tens of millions of dollars, sending utility prices skyrocketing. Instead, the bipartisan infrastructure bill will help fund those repairs — and bring broadband to rural areas and repair roads and bridges."

On social issues, which have turned many Democrats into Republicans, "Baldwin is unapologetic," Rubin reports. Baldwin cited Wisconsin's recent state Supreme Court race, an example of how "freedom of choice is an issue that unites people across party lines," Rubin writes. "On guns, she pointed out that in a very gerrymandered state, you 'see a difference between the state legislature and the average voter.' Republicans are trying to make gun access even easier. 'I don't think the Wisconsin public or even gun-owning public is in line with that,' she said."

Baldwin's approach combines standing firm on issues but always listening to, and sometimes educating, Wisconsin voters. One example: court decisions on redistricting should influence voters' choices in "selecting presidents and senators," Rubin writes. "Her success is proof of some basic political nostrums. If you work incredibly hard, pay close attention to your state and solve people's daily problems, partisan labels mean less. . . . Moreover, framing social issues as matters of 'rights and freedoms' allows her to reach voters who don't normally consider themselves to be 'progressive.'. . . Baldwin's reelection prospects will be greatly affected by the presidential race. However, don't be surprised if she runs far ahead of the top of the ticket. She's done it before and knows precisely how to extend her winning streak."