rural revolt?

[nehemiah]

interesting electoral analysis here --> http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2006/08/12/a-protest-like-the-old-days/

A century and more ago, farmers and the other people of rural communities were in an almost riotous protest. They were being abused by powerful interests and social forces, these things could be addressed by p0litics, and they knew it, and they acted accordingly. They formed political parties, they did battle within political parties, they got leaders of major political parties (William Jennings Bryan, for one) to pay attention and take up their cause. They got radical and they got uppity. And partly as a result, their lot gradually improved in the early 20th century.

Much of rural America in a condition no less dire today, and a good many of the reasons are external and attributable to decisions made by politicians and leaders of various powerful interests. And where is the protest today in rural America?

You could argue that much of rural America is depopulating; compared to a century and more ago, there is simply a lot less electoral clout there. But that’s not equally true everywhere; in some parts of the country, farm towns still have a lot of impact. One of the best places to consider this, and it the impact a rural revolt could prospectively have, is in Washington’s 5th congressional district.

[ChesapeakeBills]

the entire states of idaho and oklahoma- two of the gop's strongest states could fit that mold.

so you are saying the tide is turning in rural america because of changing economic forces?

but what about homeland security? gotta protect those walmarts.

[ticatfan3]

Going on up here as we speak,the farmers have been on the march for a while now, brought down the liberals.

[rob on the job]

the entire states of idaho and oklahoma- two of the gop's strongest states could fit that mold.

so you are saying the tide is turning in rural america because of changing economic forces?

but what about homeland security? gotta protect those walmarts.

Perhpas, Ches, but as soon as the Democrats start jabbering about gun control and affirmative action and closed-shop factories, they will lose any and all Red States they have targeted.

[nehemiah]

for one instance, montana is trending democratic. the governor is beloved, and he is certainly not a DLC type.

populism is a strong force in American politics. IMO, we'll see some populist democrats get elected in 2006.

it's about time we saw candidates specific to the region. i'm sick of DLC scum running the place.

[ChesapeakeBills]

Perhpas, Ches, but as soon as the Democrats start jabbering about gun control and affirmative action and closed-shop factories, they will lose any and all Red States they have targeted.
Affirmitive action is a dead term. I believe the current term is equal opportunity.

And people have short memories. How can you worry about gun control, when you can't afford to buy any guns?

[rob on the job]

Affirmitive action is a dead term. I believe the current term is equal opportunity.

And people have short memories. How can you worry about gun control, when you can't afford to buy any guns?

Point #1: Sorry. I'm an old fart.

Point #2: Believe me, if the Democrats enact a platform that mentions controlling gun ownership, they are dead in the Red.

[ChesapeakeBills]

i'm sick of DC scum running the place.

Hey man, I'm in DC. I wouldn't cosider most people here scum.

DC is like 90 % Democrat. And most of the territory inside the beltway is mostly dem as well.

I'm sure you mean the elected representatives inside DC- from other places (like the interior part of the country).

[ChesapeakeBills]

Point #1: Sorry. I'm an old fart.

Point #2: Believe me, if the Democrats enact a platform that mentions controlling gun ownership, they are dead in the Red.

I'm just pulling your chain a little about the affirmitive action thing. Here in DC, it's so passé to say that...

On my second point, I think there eventually comes a time when you think with your wallet- and say "it's the economy, stupid". Dem's have a very good track record of pulling that one off. And I think that rural America is hurting enough to think that it's time for a change.

[Green Lantern]

for one instance, montana is trending democratic. the governor is beloved, and he is certainly not a DLC type.

populism is a strong force in American politics. IMO, we'll see some populist democrats get elected in 2006.

it's about time we saw candidates specific to the region. i'm sick of DC scum running the place.


I think populism will not win the day in 2006.

Also, the reason it has failed historically is that it is anti-Washington. It is oxymoronic to go to Washington to be against it. You can't run for an office you hate. You can't be FOR less action and take any action to promote your choice.

Populism has failed twice in US history, both times for the above stated reasons.

[nehemiah]

Hey man, I'm in DC. I wouldn't cosider most people here scum.

DC is like 90 % Democrat. And most of the territory inside the beltway is mostly dem as well.

I'm sure you mean the elected representatives inside DC- from other places (like the interior part of the country).:rofl:

whoops.

i meant the DLC scum.

[35Pete]

interesting electoral analysis here --> http://www.ridenbaugh.com/index.php/2006/08/12/a-protest-like-the-old-days/

A century and more ago, farmers and the other people of rural communities were in an almost riotous protest. They were being abused by powerful interests and social forces, these things could be addressed by p0litics, and they knew it, and they acted accordingly. They formed political parties, they did battle within political parties, they got leaders of major political parties (William Jennings Bryan, for one) to pay attention and take up their cause. They got radical and they got uppity. And partly as a result, their lot gradually improved in the early 20th century.

Much of rural America in a condition no less dire today, and a good many of the reasons are external and attributable to decisions made by politicians and leaders of various powerful interests. And where is the protest today in rural America?

You could argue that much of rural America is depopulating; compared to a century and more ago, there is simply a lot less electoral clout there. But that’s not equally true everywhere; in some parts of the country, farm towns still have a lot of impact. One of the best places to consider this, and it the impact a rural revolt could prospectively have, is in Washington’s 5th congressional district.

I think you also need to consider that in addition to the gun issue, and it is stronger than one might initially think, that rural people often just seem xenophobic about "city folk" as my farm owning Uncle would say (Franklinville). They see that, equate it to the dems which typically have an advantage in urban areas, and it leaves them with a bad taste in their mouths. I think the distrust for us city folk is the perception that we think that they are backwards or stupid. A lot of people DO say that and that will never help their cause in these areas.

[anEinherjer]

Hey man, I'm in DC. I wouldn't cosider most people here scum.

DC is like 90 % Democrat. And most of the territory inside the beltway is mostly dem as well.

I'm sure you mean the elected representatives inside DC- from other places (like the interior part of the country).

Just as the devil's advocate... DC is truly 90+% Democrat. If the Dems were going to save us all from ourselves, wouldn't DC be a paradise with such solid and unwavering support?

Suckers.

[anEinherjer]

Oh, and I'd also like to know what the link author means by "dire" with regards to rural America.

[ChesapeakeBills]

Just as the devil's advocate... DC is truly 90+% Democrat. If the Dems were going to save us all from ourselves, wouldn't DC be a paradise with such solid and unwavering support?

Suckers.
DC has NO federal representation (sometimes the dc area rep's look out for them- but don't look for them to support a commuter tax, oh no)

I do not agree with your post.

[anEinherjer]

Sure, DC has no fed representation, but don't they have a local government? Isn't that local government supported by local taxes? Sure it is. Why aren't things running better? Why isn't it a liberal paradise, given that liberals in DC have essentially free reign.

The position of each side is that things will be better with "the right people" in charge. I'm just providing more material evidence that such thinking is utterly out of whack with reality, that's all.

[ChesapeakeBills]

Sure, DC has no fed representation, but don't they have a local government? Isn't that local government supported by local taxes? Sure it is. Why aren't things running better? Why isn't it a liberal paradise, given that liberals in DC have essentially free reign.

The position of each side is that things will be better with "the right people" in charge. I'm just providing more material evidence that such thinking is utterly out of whack with reality, that's all.
Good points, anEin...

The problem I have with local politics is that it is so territorial. Everything is a NIMBY. The stadium deal could have been screwed up royally, but it looks like it's going to happen. But dissenters argued that it came at too high of a price, which is probably true.

I do however trust that Dem's could and will do a better job in handling the economy, which I think is an extremely important issue right now. And right now, DC is thriving, along with Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland (blue territory).

[anEinherjer]

DC is thriving, but have you been to Southeast lately? What about the crime emergency? I don't trust any politician to "handle" the economy and believe we'd all be better off if they didn't try. The rurals of upstate NY haven't been helped too much by the Dems.

Right now, though, I can't really disagree with you - the right has ****ed things up badly enough fiscally that I don't see the Dems doing any worse. If we're lucky we'll end up with a split gov't and can get back to a slightly better place.

As for stadiums, I have a serious problem with politicians spending my money to enrich wealthy white guys in the name of a sports team, but... I guess I'm in the minority on that one.

[35Pete]

As for stadiums, I have a serious problem with politicians spending my money to enrich wealthy white guys in the name of a sports team, but... I guess I'm in the minority on that one.

I'm with ya on that. Funny the decrying of corporate welfare around here seems so justifiable. Until it involves the Bills and talk of a new stadium. Then the exception is made....

[anEinherjer]

Not for me. :)

But I still don't know what's so "dire" about the straits in which our rural brethren find themselves. (see how I try to get this thread back on-topic) :D

[ChesapeakeBills]

DC is thriving, but have you been to Southeast lately? What about the crime emergency? I don't trust any politician to "handle" the economy and believe we'd all be better off if they didn't try. The rurals of upstate NY haven't been helped too much by the Dems.

Right now, though, I can't really disagree with you - the right has ****ed things up badly enough fiscally that I don't see the Dems doing any worse. If we're lucky we'll end up with a split gov't and can get back to a slightly better place.

As for stadiums, I have a serious problem with politicians spending my money to enrich wealthy white guys in the name of a sports team, but... I guess I'm in the minority on that one.SE is a hole. I worked there for about 8 months at a building near the washington navy yard (at which time I had a conspicuous absence from the Range).

Sorry to keep straying off topic in this thread. I hope that rural america makes a comeback. I really do. And with the current administration, I just don't see them giving a damn.

[anEinherjer]

And with the current administration, I just don't see them giving a damn.

And with history by my side, I can say with confidence that neither do the Dems. Unfortunately.