The Democrat Party has disengaged from the American conversation

[Snurgle]

The Democrat Party has disengaged from the American conversation.

Winning both houses of congress plus the White House in 2008 seems to have radicalized the party when it comes to US politics. It seems like the period of 2008-2010 caused them to move so far to the left that they can no longer win rural voters at ALL.

In modern to be a truly mainstream party with an ability to govern, a party needs to attract rural voters, because they dictate who wins the House. They have become the party of Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, and Steven Colbert. None of these people have any connection with rural voters. Furthermore, they almost look down with disdain at rural America as if it is something to be discarded and forgotten. They don't share their cultural beliefs or seemingly respect them anymore. Rural voters have no need for new government programs, and they are happy with religion. In response, Obama talks about bitter people clinging to guns and religion, which helps drive rural voters away.

Rural voters have power. They offer the ability to govern the US. Playing the blame game and saying the reason is gerrymandering instead of looking inwards to CHANGE and maybe find a way to connect with the rural voters will leave the democrat party forever a minor party, always in opposition as it is right now.

The democrats will not offer a ticket that will resonate with rural voters in 2016. The House has now swung FAR toward the GOP. Its at 247 republicans and 188 democrats. That is the largest GOP majority since before FDR and the 1929 crash. You cannot explain that away simply by gerrymandering.

But how can they move to the right at this point? They almost seem to have gone too far. Any attempt to win rural voters will be met with calls that it is going backwards by the democrat base. And if they DON'T move to the right, they are OUT of the national conversation and can never govern again.

Its like the democrats are trying to govern Europe when they live in America. They are two different places with two different cultural beliefs. This is why the GOP holds both houses and is very unlikely to ever give them up.

Zero facts with opinion based rhetoric. Seems legit.

Clinton was surrounded by a Republican based House and Congress also. One party owns both quite often, makes zero difference. This is part of the puzzle as to why as a country we're moving backwards. 2015 and women are having to fight for some rights again? More talk of 'God' since we got a black man in office than in the decade before. Reality has a liberal bias, sorry. It's like the war on drugs. You're trying so hard to fight against marijuana legalization even though so much research has been done over the decades and legal states are prospering...yet you'll still resist, because reasons.

Perpetual hate solves nothing but create a stagnant environment. No one can grow with nothing to inspire. That's my opinion.

[Fahrenheit]

A few others have mentioned this already, but it's so asinine it warrants repeating.

If you think that Democrats are extreme to the left, you're bat shit insane. If anything they occupy center and in a lot of cases, such as Obama they are even slightly right center.

[fengosa]

Obama on measles: 'You should get your kids vaccinated'

Rand Paul on measles: 'I don't think there's anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom'

Who's disengaged from what again????

[Lenonis]

Aren't quite a number of rural areas fairly white, fairly poor, and fairly dependent on welfare and the like?

If that's the case, how is it that the GOP claims that the Dems are keeping the black community dependent on the government teat but not the rural white community?

[Reeve]

Aren't quite a number of rural areas fairly white, fairly poor, and fairly dependent on welfare and the like?

If that's the case, how is it that the GOP claims that the Dems are keeping the black community dependent on the government teat but not the rural white community?

Farmers aren't poor, by and large. They do just fine.

[Sky High]

Aren't quite a number of rural areas fairly white, fairly poor, and fairly dependent on welfare and the like?

If that's the case, how is it that the GOP claims that the Dems are keeping the black community dependent on the government teat but not the rural white community?

the one good bit of marketing the GOP is able to pull off. granted appealing to the LCD isn't all that hard.

[Naxere]

If that's the case, how is it that the GOP claims that the Dems are keeping the black community dependent on the government teat but not the rural white community?

How is the black community doing under Obama, by the way?

[Zenfoldor]

Landline phones?

I have no idea. It was just the first chart that pulled up when I typed in "self identified political ideology 2015" and I recognized the name Gallup, so I figure legit. I don't know anything about their methods.

[Hammerfest]

If anything, if my country is that much more "statist" than yours, by your argument, I'd think I'd have a better understanding of it than you.

No, by my argument you'd think statism is normal. I have tried in the past to avoid getting into discussions regarding US politics with people who don't live in the US because they generally don't have any skin in the game and don't have a frame of reference that matches my own. I guess I'll have to exercise that here.

[Lenonis]

Farmers aren't poor, by and large. They do just fine.

But farmers aren't all of the rural inhabitants.

- - - Updated - - -

How is the black community doing under Obama, by the way?

I don't know. Go ask them. Obvious deflection is obvious.

[NineSpine]

No, by my argument you'd think statism is normal. I have tried in the past to avoid getting into discussions regarding US politics with people who don't live in the US because they generally don't have any skin and the game and don't have a frame of reference that matches my own. I guess I'll have to exercise that here.

And that wouldn't happen to be because people outside the US more quickly recognize the fallacy of your arguments?

[Hammerfest]

And that wouldn't happen to be because people outside the US more quickly recognize the fallacy of your arguments?

Not at all. It's because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to US politics.

[Zenfoldor]

Obama on measles: 'You should get your kids vaccinated'

Rand Paul on measles: 'I don't think there's anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom'

Who's disengaged from what again????

Both quoted people believe it is a good idea to get vaccinations, neither want to come to your house and hold you down while Eric Holder sticks your kid with a needle.

[Sky High]

Not at all. It's because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to US politics.

so saith you.

[Annoying]

I'm not sure surveillance is a rightist thing. Surveillance is more governmental involvement and less personal liberty. Conservativism is kind of all about personal liberty and reduced government involvement, often at the expense of the general welfare.

I'd agree. On the X/Y axis commonly used, surveillance is an "up" thing, pushing a party toward "authoritarian" and away from "libertarian".

     Authoritarian
           |
           |
Liberal ---+--- Conservative
           |
           |
      Libertarian

But farmers aren't all of the rural inhabitants.

Yeah. I'm a rural inhabitant. I'm certainly nowhere near a farmer.

[Reeve]

It appears rural incomes are consistently lower than urban incomes in all but one state, Rhode Island:



Source: http://rupri.org/Forms/p2002-5.pdf

[Lenonis]

Both quoted people believe it is a good idea to get vaccinations, neither want to come to your house and hold you down while Eric Holder sticks your kid with a needle.

"Everyone should be vaccinated"
"I believe vaccination should be a personal choice"

These two statements are contradictory.

- - - Updated - - -

It appears rural incomes are consistently lower than urban incomes in all but one state, Rhode Island:

Which supports my earlier statement.

Also, to your point about farmers -- don't they rely heavily on farm subsidies? Isn't that just a different form of welfare, more of the corporate kind?

[Reeve]

Which supports my earlier statement.

Yeah. I found data that agreed with you and contradicted my thought, so I posted it.

Also, to your point about farmers -- don't they rely heavily on farm subsidies? Isn't that just a different form of welfare, more of the corporate kind?

Yes absolutely. Doesn't mean it isn't true.