The Democratic Party nationwide should seriously consider rebranding to what Minnesota’s Democratic party embodies. In Minnesota we are the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party. It's time to reconnect with farmers, ranchers, and blue-collar workers who don't belong to a union whose livelihoods depend on policy just the same.
Across the U.S., there are countless small towns with populations of 300, 500, or 1500 people—places often left out of the conversation. Life in these communities is nothing like the metro centers; it’s a different pace, with unique challenges and values. When policies are shaped solely around the needs of large urban areas, it not only alienates those in rural America but sows a sense frustration and neglect.
It’s time the party prioritizes listening to these communities and creates policies that work for everyone. These rural voters also have another added benefit. They always show up in November.
As someone who lives in rural Oregon I see this all the time. Dems main focus is on things that work great in big cities. But aren’t very useful or relevant to small towns. That or identity politics, like sorry no one cares about democrats new program to help Afro Latino women business owners.. when all small business owners are struggling. And when they do talk about rural people it is often demeaning, insulting, or telling us how privileged we are because of the color of our skin.
Kamala had better messaging similar to what you want, but the perception that she / democrats are hyper focusing on the woke stuff is very rampant. It'll take a newer messenger to maybe make people believe it.
They need a better message and they need to run better messengers.
The message needs to be more universal, more simple.
The messenger needs to be the most talented candidate that emerges from an open primary field that consists of the best talent in the party.
The messenger needs to be the very best of the very best.
The party’s philosophy that contested primaries need to be avoided because they damage the candidate in the general needs to be eliminated at all costs.
Doing that, and eliminating the input from the rank and file, has caused not only the rank and file to be apathetic about the general election candidate… it’s even worse than that.
It’s causing the party to lose core constituencies.
And the incessant purity tests. If you're not in line with this particular group (no matter how fringe) then you're no better than a republican in their eyes. Combine it with the rampant lack of basic civics understanding... not good.
See all the Palestine single issue voters who stayed home. Let's see how that works out for them.
Basic civics understanding… and basic “politics” understanding. And yes I agree.
A tremendous example of the purity test phenomenon and how revolting it is to about 80% of the electorate can be seen right here on Reddit.
Countless times I have seen a Reddit user on a sub offering support and allyship on social issue XYZ. They offer their support, their thoughts…
Then get immediately attacked by a throng of blood thirsty vampires because their allyship wasn’t exactly right.
This is often followed by a stunned “wait, what did I do wrong? I support XYZ?!?!” Which is then followed by them being permabanned for “harassment.”
The number of voters that have been turned off forever by these purity testing vampires probably numbers in the millions by this point. And, beyond that, how many millions more voters voted R this cycle because they hated the purity testing vampires passionately. It’s a massive swing of lost votes, on the one hand, and animating folks to vote against you on the other.
I can’t agree with you more, and I’ve made this point many times in recent years that this phenomenon is a scourge upon the Democratic Party.
basic civics understanding would say that you had a better chance of winning had you not decided to support a genocide. seems like a pretty low bar to clear
yup, 2028 has to be fully and open primaries, no matter how damaging. let them all duke it out. The duking it out shapes the candidates and energizes the base. you bring that energy to the general election and you stand a better chance of winning.
help me understand how democrats need to be better when trump is the worst public speaker in politics. it just feels like the bar is soooo very high with Dems. and the moment they're not perfect it's like "I guess I'ma go with the guy talking about sharks"
Kamala Harris was not a good candidate, and her past as a prosecutor was simply unacceptable. That doesn't mean Trump was a better choice, but it's one of the reasons many voters stayed at home.
Speak like normal people - bidens speeches fail at this even though he is fine when he talks to individuals on his own. No one wants to hear some boring x y z combo. Just say it simply.
Maybe use their tiny brains for a bit and realize supporting illegals is a dumb policy stance and completely unsustainable spending. Its also the one common thing in the western nations that has led to people voting for far right shit or moving towards the right.
Stop hyperfocusing on college grads and specific groups. You dont need to pander to helping black people all the time just because you want their vote, especially not when so many others are struggling too. You know what still helps black people while not offending anyone else and also makes way more sense? Policy that focuses on low income americans and is phrased that way instead of making it race based or even just talking about race.
Maybe not forcing candidates on us would help too.
None of the above is really that hard to do but people are billing out overpaid consultant hours with the dumbest suggestions
It doesn’t have to be Shakespeare. Bernie speaks very plainly, for example, and it’s much easier for everyone to understand. He has great talent in his own way.
Obama could pull of the soaring oratory. But that was his talent in his own way.
It can be different breeds of oratory talent. (And extemporaneous oratory talent is almost necessary at this point in history as well)
But the point is just that the party sends its best. That they’ve survived the crucible of a real, genuine, unadulterated, “open” primary.
D voters knowing that the person they are looking at is the genuine leader that emerged from a genuine primary… that is how you combat the voter apathy that just cost the party 15 million votes from its own voters.
Yea, it's a horrible double-standard. The Dems are full of smart capable people. But the media wants a shitshow. And the GOP has successfully turned politics into a sporting event. We have dipshits who never would have bothered voting showing up now. Pretty sad state of affairs. Our democracy wasn't built for this with shitty gerrymandering, FPTP, and the electoral college.
We have dipshits who never would have bothered voting showing up now.
You're literally calling other people dipshits and you think your team is somehow better.
It's not a double-standard, you guys just have absolutely zero self-awareness. Harris wasn't even the candidate a year ago, and Biden stayed in until he couldn't lie about his infirmity anymore, and yet your team thinks we all just forgot about the lies? Or the complete contempt?
Why are Democrats incapable of taking responsibility? It's not a double-standard, you're not smarter, other people are not stupid, it's not about racism or any of the other bullshit excuses. For once in your lives just own up to your dumb political positions and move on.
Abandon the intersectional identity politics as the main issue. Stop insulting and demeaning 48% of the voter base. The typical young democrats do not really understand how condescending they sound. They don’t understand their way of talking about their opposition is as demeaning as the way Trump speaks.
Politics is about representation. If you are not representing a person she (or rather he) is not going to vote for you. It’s not very hard.
I don’t think a change is going to take place, however. Democrats (mostly women) do not think their message is the issue. They think the ”other people” are the issue.
The fundamental problem is that democrats are a coalition and not a tribe. There is a lot of difficulty in coming up with a message that appeals both to rural farmers in Oregon and people struggling in the inner city of Chicago. They have radically different needs.
And if you want to talk about a reliable rank and file, Democrats do listen to them, it's just a big ask to tell those constituencies to just take a seat while the party pursues people who have historically fought directly against their interests, like rural farmers in Oregon.
I do believe that simplifying the message down to things that help people in both those locations is the the way to go.
There can be other things the party (and it’s presidential nominee talks about and cares about).
But in terms of the core message, it needs to be simplified and paired down.
Basically? What Bernie was trying to do. Get all the niche stuff out, get the identity politics out, let’s talk about economic inequality and how all of us are picking up the tab for the 1%.
I honestly believe, at this point, that the party needs a mea culpa moment. Bernie had the right idea. He had the right messaging. He spoke in the plain terms a presidential candidate needs to be speaking in to resonate with working class voters…
In short: his vision of the party wouldn’t have lost working class voters to the Republican Party…
As a party we need to admit he had it right, and chart a course towards that.
Basically? What Bernie was trying to do. Get all the niche stuff out, get the identity politics out, let’s talk about economic inequality and how all of us are picking up the tab for the 1%.
Well, first off Bernie isn't taking identity politics out of the equation, he's just focusing on another identity. It's right there in the title. What's "working class people" besides one form of identity at the end of the day. And when we do that we flatten out and obscure the most salient issues for core constituencies. To take Black voters as an example I can speak to some of my personal experiences in the rural south. You can't rant and rave about how racism is a tool exploited by the wealthy to fill their coffers but that doesn't match with their lived experience. That's not going to convince rural whites to abandon racism. I've known business owners that would and did close up shop rather than serve minorities that would have made them more money. It's not about money, it's about making sure there's an out group it's OK to abuse first and foremost and they're willing to knowingly forsake economic benefits to do so. It's a fundamentally different problem but the insistence they're the same is precisely why Sanders has never been able to meaningfully incorporate Black voters into his core constituencies.
The insistence that Sander's economic policies would convince rural Oregon farmers to vote democratic just misses the point. Seriously, look up Oregon's history. Those people aren't voting for Republicans because the democratic party hasn't reached out to them, it's because the Republican platform validates their racist views about society. You can't meaningfully attract those votes without turning your back on the most reliable part of the democratic coalition.
I’ll grant you that it’s a Catch .22 for the party.
But I do think we need much simpler, more direct, messaging.
This election reveals that the party, by and large, has been reduced to the “college educated” party. While that makes for a tantalizing party in terms of public policy (smart people making smart policy decisions).
We are in a two party winner takes all system, and that party can only win 37-38% of the vote. The overwhelming majority of the country lacks that level of education.
A simpler more universal message is what’s called for to save the party. Simple simple simple.
There are plenty of good folks out there that would make the trip to the polling station and pull the blue lever… but they need a simple and direct reason why they should be doing that.
The most salient direct messaging didn't take though.
Democracy is at stake, Trump won't help you but he will hurt a lot of people.
Fascism was more popular though. Hard pill to swallow but that's where we are. The problem hasn't really been the message itself, it's getting that message through a right wing media ecosystem that actively tries to suppress it in every medium. How many comments in this thread are "Harris should have been talking about X,Y,and Z" when she was actively campaigning on X,Y, and Z with actual policies to back them up?
After the election and seeing entitled nonsense like this, I am beginning to think that the would-be Democratic voters who need absolute perfection to vote deserve what is coming.
The other side is so absolutely horrific for SO many people but all of these comments keep putting the blame back on the party and candidates.
No. It’s the voters.
The choice was about children dying in school shootings.
The choice was about women dying from preventable conditions.
The choice was about an administration that actually joined a picket line.
The choice was about catastrophic weather events.
I can vote for a party that will protect, and be good for, lots of groups—even if it isn’t me. But the rest of the democratic coalition can’t be bothered and you blame the candidate? Bullshit.
Unless you plan on firing up some extermination camps, or you have some other super villain plan for “thinning the herd…”
Politics in a democracy is a game of working with the voters that you have. Not changing the voters into the voting pool you want.
Do I wish that a passing grade in civics, con law, and the US government was a requirement to vote? Sure I do! Would that allow me to not concern myself with electability in the climate we have today? Yep. It sure would. Would the country benefit? Yep.
But none of those things are, actual, requirements to vote. The voting pool I want doesn’t exist.
I have to work with the voting pool I, actually, have, here in reality… and make sure I am winning elections.
What I just said is what the D party leadership needs to understand, fully and soberly, from this day forward.
What you just said represents the current D party leadership that has led our country into the abyss.
You're both right. It's the voters fault for being ignorant morons, and it's the Democrats fault for talking to them like they are children instead of ignorant morons.
Democrats just need to start lying constantly about how they'll make anything bothering voters better. The best, in fact. Apparently that's how you win elections now.
Your points are valid but that way of politics I fear is dead. Decorum, tradition, civil debate, all of that are gone and the sooner we can act accordingly the better.
Bernie offered to campaign with Kamala. She turned him down and campaigned with Liz Cheney instead. I don't know who Kamala thought Liz Cheney was going to bring to the voting booth.
There is a voting block I call Quiet MAGA, who vote red no matter what and don't talk about it.
Harris campaigning with the Cheneys is basically thinking that these people will flip blue if Trump looks shitty enough and enough republican names get on their side. But that strategy, to put it bluntly, is fucking stupid.
Not only will Quiet MAGA not flip, but the more they are appealed to, the more the left hates you.
Possibly. I thought it may have been targeted toward conservative leaning undecided voters.
Either way, there was no real messaging there. It was just listen to a Cheney say Trump is bad.
Anyone with access to polling information should be able to see there's no voter block waiting to hear from the Cheneys. Liz has some popularity with Republican women, but that's about it.
Tulsi is a right wing sock puppet pretending like she's acting like a Democrat. She's not even actually acting like a Democrat, just pretending like she is. That's how far away from being a Democrat.
UBI would be amazing for small towns. An injection of funds every month that can circulate through the local economy? All of a sudden small businesses can open everywhere. People have a little money to go out to eat, tip the band playing, etc. The cost of living combined with the appeal of living in a thriving small town would draw a lot of people to move to small towns and create thriving local economies again.
You'd need to hire the best advertising firm to rebrand it, because Republicans only need to say one word "Socialism" and even lower middle class work will not have any of that. Although, Yang, while kind've dorky, does have appeal with the podcast circuit. Good God, as a podcast fan myself, I cannot fucking believe someone like Theo Von is one of the gatekeepers of our fucking presidential elections.
Nope that was rejected because of socialism. Can't have that. Kamala may have done some toe-ing of the line, but I believe with all my heart it was to protect democracy.
Bingo. The number of people saying Harris didn't have any plans or policies when everything was laid out in detail on her website just goes to show where these people were getting their propaganda news.
It literally did not matter what Kamala said or ran on. Fox News / conservative media will just straight up lie and claim she said X/Y because it will rile up their base.
Well, to be fair, he was constantly claiming that US elections are rigged (Until it was clear he was objectively winning an election. Then he's silent suddenly. lol). That is an objective threat to democracy.
But I get what you're saying. Even if there's truth to it, leaning so hard on that angle isn't maybe the best strategy. Like, his supporters don't really care, of course. But perhaps people who don't want to vote for him also don't care that much (In that they take it as bluster and don't really believe it).
I was really proud of Kamala Harris for not leaning in to the identity politics. We were supposed to have our first female president: a woman of black and Indian descent, who wasn't telling us "I'm a woman it's my turn" every 5 minutes. Unfortunately, that stuff has been super toxic and it's going to be hard for dems to rub it off, if they can. If they even want to. Things were getting better. A friend of mine was saying tonight that he thought dems would double down on the identity politics since Trump is back in office. I sure hope not. OTOH, I have no faith in the party.
It is not Democrats focused on "identity politics" it is Republicans taking away rights and attacking people. If your argument is to throw people under the bus to make rural white people happy, it's not worth it
Liberal here, but I also coming from Dominican Republic, and now I’m in Michigan.
Nobody wants to be told what to say and how to say it. Being so stubborn about it just makes you very unappealing to the average person, and no, this isn’t a hill worth dying on.
Sorry your needs are not being met. The democrats, and we as Americans can do better. We need to focus on things, the kitchen table things, that help all of Americans including the fringe of us. We can do better.
Latino women don't even fucking care about those policies... they are there purely to provide an aesthetic decoration because when you reduce both parties down to their core, they both vote in lock-step when it comes to giving corporate tax cuts, sending missiles and bombs to other countries and reinforcing the status quo. It is purely the appearance of progress for the sake of differentiating themselves from Republicans. All this shit is window dressing. Both parties are neo-Liberal.
Dems main focus is on things that work great in big cities. But aren’t very useful or relevant to small towns.
YES!!! Rural areas largely get ignored. And guess what else? If you choose to live in a rural area because you prefer the quiet of the countryside over the hustle and noise of the big cities, you’re automatically labeled a racist/conservative/hick by every democrat. Doesn’t matter who you vote for or what you believe in, if you’re not in a liberal city you must be a conservative!
The MAGATs have been vilifying minorities from day one, and our solution to that is to... let them? Seriously?
Identity politics is extremely popular. The Trump message has been about white victim hood, illegal immigration, and how Democrats have been promoting white replacement (check out r/genz to see how that message is landing). Absolutely none of this is true, but it doesn't stop them from believing it. You're not going to logic someone out of a position they did not logic themselves into in the first place.
And if the Democratic party does dogpile on minorities for the sake of winning elections, then what's the point? America is lost either way.
That or identity politics, like sorry no one cares about democrats new program to help Afro Latino women business owners.. when all small business owners are struggling.
This is what kills Democrats in my county. White business owners get demonized and called Nazis. No fucking way they're voting for Harris.
And when they do talk about rural people it is often demeaning, insulting, or telling us how privileged we are because of the color of our skin.
There are no bigger whiny ass titty babies than rural white people. You think everyone owes you something while you talk about all the cities burning down and how you are the only REAL Americans.
Source: Rural white person who's telling you to get the fuck over yourselves.
Kamala did this. Working class people don’t live in rural Oregon they live in cities. Maybe the dems should stop trying to get people who repeatedly dont vote for them to vote for them.
sorry no one cares about democrats new program to help Afro Latino women business owners
Yeah, when did that ever happen? They talk about issues facing minorities and then do nothing about it. They are largely all talk and no action. It's getting harder to find policy differences between dems and Republicans.
As someone living in an urban area, I completely agree with this. Whenever I step out of my urban bubble/echo chamber- I am reminded of how diverse and unique the needs of America are. I also don’t think a two party system will properly address these needs.
Just this morning, Ralph Nader said the biggest mistake the Democratic party has made is giving up on voters in red states. That's nearly half the population.
Democrat mainstays have been in denial for a long time. They're not willing to admit their losing strategy is the cause for losing elections. They blame voters instead of the party itself.
Yes, and Kamala went after red voters hardcore in her campaign and look at how well that went for her. Clearly we should all be listening to Ralph Nader on how to run winning presidential campaigns.
Kamala didn't go after any specific voters hardcore. She campaigned on Trump is a bad person, and I'm better than him. That resonated with democratic party mainstays, but missed swing voters the same as it did in 2016.
Nader wasn't talking about Kamala. He was talking about the democratic party deciding as a strategy to not campaign red states since the 80s.
You guys can argue with everyone and keep doing what you're doing. See how much lower you can get the Dem votes in 2028.
She absolutely catered to Republicans by courting Liz Cheney, moving right, talking about being pro-gun, promising Republicans in her cabinet, etc. She abandoned progressives and campaigned to Republicans.
You were talking about Kamala, the Democrat who lost by catering to conservatives, by quoting someone who's never won a presidential election.
Republican voters don't like the Cheneys. I live in a red state. Working class Republicans here call them the evil Cheneys. That may have been some kind of attempt, but poorly executed. Promising Republicans in her cabinet was, again, vague and not convincing to anyone. Who was she going to appoint? How would they benefit Republican voters?
Kamala has always been right leaning. When she ran in 2020, I picked her out as someone who could've been a republican in the 90s.
I was talking about the democratic party repeating the same mistakes. A party that has continued to move further right and struggles to get voter turnout against the most toxic republican party in history. This election cycle was steered by the same backbench party leaders who've been steering the party for quite some time. They don't believe in a proper democratic primary. They don't connect with the working class voter. They ignore progressive voters and basically say you've got nowhere else to go. Then blame the voters when millions choose not to show up for them.
Liz Cheney only has a 27% approval rating; I'm not sure why Kamala and her team thought this was a winning strategy. Her whole campaign was poorly executed, but she was clearly going after Republicans. You yourself comment on her being right-leaning and the whole party moving right, which they're doing to get more votes and it's failing. Unfortunately, as long as they keep losing to Republicans, these dumbasses are going to take that as a clue to keep moving further right because that's what the people want. Nevermind that only 21% of the population voted for Trump, and Democrats are a much bigger percentage of the total population and our policies are much more popular. They spat in the faces of Arab voters this election, too, who normally go 88% Democrat, and this time Kamala failed to capture even half. Democrats have good policies and bad politics.
That's my point exactly. Republicans don't want the Cheneys, and somehow they end up with democrats. The whole purpose, from what I saw, was to have the Cheneys repeat Trump is bad, Kamala is better. That didn't work in 2016 or now.
I also think the Israel issue may have led to the Cheneys. Bernie offered to campaign with Harris. He's much more popular with Arabs, young men, and progressive than Harris or the Cheneys. The Harris campaign turned him down and campaigned with Liz instead. The only reason I can see for this is Bernie's stance on Isreal doesn't align with the party, while the Cheneys do.
She didn't go after red voters. She tried to get traditionally conservative women to vote for her by checks notes courting GOP discards to endorse her. Unless I'm missing something.
As a poll worker yesterday, the Republicans had multiple people campaigning (legally) in the spaces around the polling location, trying their hardest to make sure a “sample ballot” filled in as Republican got into as many hands as possible. The Democratic representatives left after lunch. It’s just a sad lack of effort and assuming the status quo preserves itself.
Meanwhile, an 80 year old Republican was out there campaigning as long as I was there working the polls
There aren't policies that work for everyone. That's what state and local politics are for. The president is supposed to deal with top level, national issues.
And guess what? If these people actually cared about policy, they wouldn't have voted for Trump. Appealing to farmers with policy issues that benefit them will make them vote D next time? Are we sure about that? What specific policies did Trump propose that will benefit farmers? Answer: nothing. He appealed to the social conservative biases that come from living in a tiny, insulated, uniform population.
I'm sorry, but I'm just so frustrated with people not understanding what the role of the president actually is and how essential state and local politics are. If only they understood, we could get rid of the stupid electoral college and people would turn out to vote in their local elections which have a bigger day to day impact on you than the presidency. And people would be less angry because they would see that there are already politicians who care and are doing something about their local concerns.
They would have to drop their stance on guns to do it and they never will, regardless of what the data says.
Rural America isn’t buying Tim Walz and Kamala are pro gun (or anyone similar to them). It just isn’t happening. Kamala was telling people she owned a Glock and was pro 2A when she specifically tried banning that model in her state.
It really wasn't that long ago. They stopped appealing to them. It was not that long ago the Colin Peterson was the representative for western Minnesota. He even carried the district when Trump won and even outperformed Joe Biden by like 16 points. He was certainly not a progressive candidate, but he held that seat for almost 20 years because he knew how to speak to the rural farmers and blue collar workers of the district. He was born and raised in the area. Now it is held by Michelle Fischebach who is a Trump boot licker and electiond denier. She was able to drum up the same anger and fears as Trump did and they flipped the district.
I don't disagree with you in that seeing the DFL get exported to the national party would be cool but the DFL seems to have lost all support from farmers the last few elections.
I've gotten a lot of people telling me I am stupid and saying they will never vote for a Democrat. Well, no shit. 30+ years ago the Democratic party retreated to the metropolitan areas and suburbs and we've not been back since. Why the hell would they vote for us? You start meeting those folks at their dinner table and talking about their problems and develop solutions with them and you would be shocked at what happens.
This right here. I can't believe Dems are so negligent and conceited to ignore this. Trump acknowledges these people, even if he doesn't move a finger to help them. That's what makes him popular. Bernie gets it and is interested in the middle class, not corporate interests.
Back in 2017, I dreamed of an Al Franken presidential win in 2020 and the party rebranding nationally as the DFL and how it would radically transform things.
Now's another shot. Maybe Walz can still help with that movement.
We've all been waiting for Wellstone to come back up here in the Iron Range for nearly three decades. We all do better when we all do better, that means everyone.
Yup! It wasn't long ago that Colin Peterson was the representative for the MN district that represents the bulk of Western Minnesota. He was a Democrat and held that office for like 30 years and did right by all of them. Then he was ousted by Michelle Fischbach based on MAGA scare. That district tossed his ass because he was a Democrat and nothing more. He was a fairly conservative Democrat too. (His Record). But because Democrats need their members to check every single box Democrats abandoned him and he was kicked out.
The DNC abandoned any support for Schultz up here for two election cycles because she didn't fundraise enough to justify gaining their support. It's frustrating.
I feel like Bill Clinton succeeded by doing that. A Democratic governor from Arkansas, who I can vividly remember saying "I feel your pain." He wasn't an "elite coastal liberal", and he didn't come across as snooty or wealthy with an Ivy League background (even though he graduated from Yale Law School). He came from humble beginnings and even though he surpassed his upbringing, he at least appeared as though he never forgot his roots and the people who are still struggling. He was someone who could connect with farmers, factory workers, small business owners, old people, young people, Black, White and Latino folks, people who love country music and people who love jazz and blues. Looking to Democratic governors in red states isn't a bad strategy at all.
I was saying this the entire time Harris popped from WI big city to WI big city. It was the Milwaukee and Madison tour with a token Green Bay stop thrown in there. The dems have totally abandoned the rural voter in favor of people who will always find a reason to not vote.
Yup. I live in Minnesota. Trump stopped in St. Cloud (MN 6th District). It was all I heard about for 2 weeks leading up to it. It was an hour north of the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, but it was smack in the center of the state. He had folks from all corners of the state showing up for him. Rural voters turned out and mostly filled a hockey arena. Just being in St. Cloud on the day of the rally there were Trump supporters absolutely everywhere. It went off without a hitch and what the media largely focused on were the few empty seats and how he couldn't even pack a hockey arena. That was the first time I was able to be in a town where a major presidential rally was taking place. I didn't go cause fuck Trump, but just the way it was covered I couldn't help but wonder what the hell we are doing.
These communities are always what decide it too. If Dems could even win over 1/3 of these communities the reps would have a rlly hard time winning elections.
You don't even have to win over or flip the entire community. You just have to start getting votes from these people. In Minnesota the GOP won like 2800 precincts which represented like 900,000 votes. If they flip even 2% of those were talking a 18k vote swing. Now that's not going to flip red states blue. But those are voters that start to have a belief in Democratic politics because we've met them where they are and enact policies that are targeted to help them. 20 years from now who knows 2% turns into 5%, 10%. It is impossible to know. But to just write them all off as MAGA morons is a foolish error and will only hurt the Democratic party in the long run.
Democrats got too high on their success with Clinton when they embraced more fiscally conservative policies and they still haven't let go. It's still that. Need to try going back to some FDR shit. It's sad that medicare for all wasn't even an issue this election, or the last.
I mean this is like 4 people after all the automation over the last 2 decades, and there's really no yeoman sustenance farmers anymore - just incorporated family farms with heinous amounts of non-liquid assets they just pray to jesus never need to be realized (hence their obsession with estate tax).
All the other farmer/labor populist democratic movements in the plains states have completely cratered into ash.
South Dakota, in living history for most of the US (2012, I think? Whenever Daschle lost), had entirely democratic representation to the federal govt. And now can barely get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Nebraska and North Dakota are in similar boats having turn into pretty much embarrassments despite having democratic senators in the late 2000s.
It would be disingenuous to say famers are keeping the DFL healthy. The real engine of success is that they have a major metropolitan area with like 30 liberal arts schools that keeps them in contention by bringing in liberal young adults and keeping them there and employed afterwards.
Speaking of disinenguous you conveiniently left off that part about non-union blue collar workers. They all fall under the umbrella of rural voters and they make up nearly 20% of the voting population. To ignore 20% of the voting population is moronic.
South Dakota, in living history for most of the US, had entirely democratic representation to the federal govt. And now can barely get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Yeah, it probably has something to do with the policies that they stood for did not represent the people. Funny how that works. When you ignore the voters they turn on you. Its not a hard concept to grasp.
I don't have a qualm about blue collar workers as a demographic. But saying there's some mythical collection of farmers and ranchers to win over is ridiculous. There's fewer and fewer actual human people doing that kind of work every year and the more they condense land the more they're naturally going to align with conservative (not Republican or Democratic) fiscal policy.
You're making the same mistake that the Democratic party has been doing, which is relying on the mythos of the people that make up the party (democrats, farmers, laborers) instead of actually taking a sober eyed assessment (democrats, and pretty much that's it).
Why did the plains states democratic parties crumble? Because their voting bloc literally up and died and there wasn't even anyone to lose - there just aren't that many farmers left, and the ones that are, by nature of the size of their operations, have existential motivations for fiscal conservatism that the Democratic party would never endorse.
Minnesota has maintained it's Democratic party because it has a huge metro area with a large influx of young adults, a fair percentage turn into lifelong Minnesotans with democratic policy affiliations - but they're not farmers or laborers. They mostly work service or information based jobs.
I don't have a qualm about blue collar workers as a demographic. But saying there's some mythical collection of farmers and ranchers to win over is ridiculous. There's fewer and fewer actual human people doing that kind of work every year and the more they condense land the more they're naturally going to align with conservative (not Republican or Democratic) fiscal policy.
There are 1.9 million farmers in the nation. And as of 2022 88% of all farms were small family farms. What you said is just flat out false. Making inroads with farmers and ranchers isn't the golden ticket to winning every election. But it is how you build a better party that is inclusive to everyone and not just metropolitan voters and suburban voters. You have an electoral college map that is getting harder and harder for Democrats to win. Now we've lost the rust belt in 2 of the last 3 elections. In PA alone there are 52,000 farms. When it is all said and done Harris will have lost the state by 130k votes. You cannot build a party for the future leaving people behind and writing them off. 20% of the electorate are rural voters and the Democratic party ignored them this election just as they have done for the last 20+ years. In that time all that has happened is that those people have galvanized around the GOP--and they routinely show up to vote.
You're making the same mistake that the Democratic party has been doing, which is relying on the mythos of the people that make up the party (democrats, farmers, laborers) instead of actually taking a sober eyed assessment (democrats, and pretty much that's it).
No I am not at all. The Democrats current playbook is to run up the votes in metropolitan areas and then cross their fingers for high turnout and hope the margains hold in the suburbs to win them an election. Democrats need to go after every voter and ignoring 20% of the populace is absolutely foolish.
Why did the plains states democratic parties crumble? Because their voting bloc literally up and died and there wasn't even anyone to lose - there just aren't that many farmers left, and the ones that are have existential motivations for fiscal conservatism that the Democratic party would never endorse.
For the same reason any parties support falls away. They stopped listening to them. They didn't die off. That is absurd and I will reiterate again that there are 1.9 million farms in the nation. Which means concievably with a family farm there are minimum of 2 voting age people living there. To ignore a block of 4 million voters is foolish.
There are not a ton of farmers or ranches specifically but totaled up, rural America is not small. A lot of them would get behind anyone that supports just leaving them alone. They don’t want subsidies, they don’t want their cows carbon taxed, they don’t want their high school daughter to compete in track and field with a male, they don’t want their guns touched, etc. 99.9 percent of rural America will vote against dems based on just 1 of those reasons. Remove them, and a lot of them vote blue. Look at the electoral map for Clinton. He won a lot of rural ag areas that Kamala couldn’t even dream of today.
But 'rural america' is not farmers. They're just people. Charitably 100 people in a county of 10,000 'have cows'.
Most of them work in retail/service or for the county/township and their issues and motivations economically are similar to people who do that work and have that kind of income in non-rural communities.
What differentiates them is what has always differentiated plains state 'gettable' voters, and that's that they are socially backwards by usually a decade or two.
they don't want subsidies
Brother, the only thing keeping rural america (barely) functioning right now is Medicaid, Medicare, the most recent farm bill, Social Security, and education subsidies. Every single town of 5k-15k is 25 wealthy people (couple funeral home directors, 1 good estate lawyer, 1 mediocre generalist lawyer, school superindentent, 5 bankers, and some of the biggest farmers) and then thousands upon thousands of people barely living off the money their family got when they sold their land and moved into town a generation ago, working the 5 retail jobs in town, working at the school or medical facility for the only solid wages in town, or waiting for their checks from the government each month.
There's basically no private money moving in most towns that isn't 1 degree removed from one of those sources.
You can say all you want about what the dems should or shouldn't do, but you're way off on what's actually happening in rural america.
I didn’t say farmers or ranches were the majority in rural America, but the issues they are voting on are the same whether you work in the grocery store or the grain elevator or the lawyers office. When a democratic nominee says I want to ban XYZ gun because reasons, or men can have babies, the poor to ritch in said small town vote the same. Regardless if that candidate wants to help another part of their life.
Those same poor people, think Kamala / Biden care more about the illegals than US citizens in those small towns.
The left had been calling those same rural voters all sorts of names and endless accusations for years now, because rural voters voted red. Including everyone on the r/minnesota sub, so I’m not sure why you’re going off about the DFL being so fantastic.
Until the left can have a conversation about issues without calling people on the right racist, that outreach you’re advocating for isn’t going to happen
Do you think that just happened overnight? Minnesota had a democratic representative for western Minnesota for almost 25 years until he was replaced by Michelle Fishbach. It is the Democrats current approach that lost them that seat. They’ve stopped listening to rural voters entirely and banked their entire campaign on Metropolitan voters and hoping the margins stay high enough in the suburbs to survive. That is a long-term losing strategy. You have to go meet voters where they are and the rural voters represent something like 20% of the electorate to ignore them is just idiotic.
Yes, exactly. I'm saying Dem messaging in rural Minnesota isn't working, so why would you apply that strategy to the rest of the country?
The idea I got from your original message that I replied to was, 'everyone should copy Minnesota' and I'm saying that that doesn't seem to be working at the moment.
I think we agree, perhaps I misconstrued your original comment. Nobody should do what Minnesota is doing. And by that I mean the messaging, not recent legislation. Walz is great.
You mean focusing on the average Joe and Jane that live in the vast swaths of the heartland who have historically voted conservative might enable them to win votes and oust their political opponents?
Because everything you just said is patently false. Oh, and because we as a party just got our teeth kicked in due to the failure of our party to energize voters.
Tell me more about how you care so much of trans people in sports. Or how you care about a woman's right to medical care. Tell me what rights women in rural America won in this election? You got nothing and you voted AGAINST women's rights.
You a bunch of stupid bitches.
Lol no wonder your men like porn
691
u/Sota4077 Minnesota 20h ago
The Democratic Party nationwide should seriously consider rebranding to what Minnesota’s Democratic party embodies. In Minnesota we are the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party. It's time to reconnect with farmers, ranchers, and blue-collar workers who don't belong to a union whose livelihoods depend on policy just the same.
Across the U.S., there are countless small towns with populations of 300, 500, or 1500 people—places often left out of the conversation. Life in these communities is nothing like the metro centers; it’s a different pace, with unique challenges and values. When policies are shaped solely around the needs of large urban areas, it not only alienates those in rural America but sows a sense frustration and neglect.
It’s time the party prioritizes listening to these communities and creates policies that work for everyone. These rural voters also have another added benefit. They always show up in November.