Sunday, July 1, 2018

Should DEMs ignore Rural MN?

Greta at MinnPost posed and interesting question. "In a statewide election, do candidates really need to bother with Greater Minnesota?" We have been discussing it in G2A Tribes have Misconceptions, but I thought it deserved a post of it's own. Here are a couple of comments from the MP site.
"The problem is that if in statewide races we ignore out state races, we can win the governorship but at the very substantial risk of losing the legislature, which is in fact the situation we are in now. For me, the point of the whole thing isn't to win elections, it's to create a status quo in which my guys can govern effectively. That's why my assessment of the last four years has been that we have failed even though we hold every statewide office." Hiram

"This is why the electoral system and districts are so important for the good of our country. Without them the urban areas could "rule the country" which could lead to some serious and maybe violent conflicts. I prefer a stable peaceful democracy (ie region / state weighted) over a perfect democracy. (ie all votes carry equal weight)" G2A 
"Why is that? Why would the conflicts turn violent? Would there be "serious and maybe violent" conflicts if rural areas "ruled the country?" Why or why not?" RB 
"Rationale: I assume it could go either way. Look at the various riots and protests turned disruptive over the past ~60 years when a sizable minority feels disenfranchised and powerless. That has caused a significant number of deaths and destruction.
Now imagine if the fairly homogeneous high density population centers could force their will across the outer suburbs and rural heartland with no checks / balances. I just could not see it ending well. 
The founding Fathers were smart to ensure everyone had to collaborate and that the high population areas could not just ignore the low population regions. 
Please remember that Germany is one of the larger European countries and it is only about the physical size of MN and WI and has ~8 times the population. A "pure democracy" may work in that small of a space, but across a nation as large and diverse as America. I don't think so." G2A
The question I have been asking is why the DEMs are so focused on things that alienate rural voters. I mean the DEMs seem obsessed with:
  • Increasing welfare and medicare, and fighting against work requirements.
  • Fighting against border security and deporting illegal workers
  • Enabling the death of 2 parent families and marriage
  • Forcing religious business owners to associate closely with LGBT citizens
  • Enabling abortions at any time during the pregnancy
I mean DEMs could get a lot more votes if they would drop some of these extreme positions...  But they are unwilling to do so and may keep losing in rural areas because of it.  And instead of coming back towards the center it seems they may be head further Left.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course Democrats shouldn't ignore rural Minnesota. If we do, we have a continuation of the status quo, Democratic statewwide office holders and a Republican legislature which is an unacceptable stalemate. And that's in the nature of a best case scenario. I shudder to think what Pawlenty, fortified by his lobbyist millions, would try to pull off as governor. Wall Street already owns Cuomo, we don't need another one they purchased.

What to do about rural Minnesota is the great conundrum. We are willing to do a lot. It's not as if rural Minnesota had some sort of a positive agenda we were rejecting. But the dynamic of rural legislators is not to just help their constituents, it's important for them to hurt urban and suburban voters. That just doesn't have much support among those whose job it is to represent cities and suburbs.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

In terms of politics turning violent, here is something I have learned in my years, and this isn't limited to just America. When the elections are ignored, when votes are discarded, when the peaceful operation of government is disrupted, the alternative can be pretty horrible. We are doing that in America. What alternatives do people who advocate the discarding of votes have to offer us?

--Hiram

John said...

I can restate these as a positive agenda if it helps:

1. Strongly encourage every citizen to learn, work and improve their lives by reducing welfare, and increasing work / training requirements.

2. Protect legal workers (jobs, incomes, etc) and the American tax payer by stopping the flow of illegal workers and removing the ones who are already here

3. Help children by promoting and supporting 2 parent families and marriage through systems of carrots and sticks.

4. Honor the religious freedom of citizens

5. Protect the lives of all babies after 20 weeks into pregnancy

As for "discarding votes"... The DEMs can start winning in other regions at any time. They just need to be a bit more inclusive and focus on the needs / concerns of legal American citizens instead of non-citizens. They are having a hard time doing that.

Anonymous said...

Working people are good for the economy. It doesn't really matter what their papers say. I learned that in Econ 101.

--Hiram

John said...

Of course it matters what their papers say...

The simple reality is that illegal workers enable US companies and Private citizens to pay all lower end employees less.

Be it that Home Owner who hires the illegal maid, nanny or gardener to save some money, or that meat processing plant / corporate farm.

It is so hypocritical of the DEMs to complain about low wages and high unemployment for minorities and other low skill / low knowledge workers... While they are supporting the people who are taking their potential jobs, or helping to keep the wages down.

It is about as bad as the person driving a VW, Subaru, Lexus, Infiniti, Kia, Hyundai, Volvo, Audi, BMW (car), Mercedes, etc while bemoaning the death of Union power in America and the falling US wages.

Anonymous said...

Think of the settler at Jamestwon. How many of them had immigration papers?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I am reading this book about the fall of the Weimar Republic. The parallels are obvious of course, but one of them is that Nazi's were opposed to globalism. They favored an isolationist economy similar to the one Trump seeks. I think that's interesting.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
I think comparing conquerors taking over a vast sparsely populated wilderness from it's indigenous people is quite different from today situation.

That is unless you are advocating that we should let them over run and conquer us?


Maybe you could read a book about socialist / central controlled countries and look for some equivalence to the Liberal agenda, and the terrible things that occurred then?

I am not certain that Trump wants an isolationist economy, however he does want to force other countries to lower their trade barriers. Now how to get there is a tactic.

Laurie said...

it looks like immigration will be a big issue this fall.

Here is a link comparing Obama and Trump immigration policies:

What Obama did with migrant families vs. what Trump is doing

John said...

Maybe... However I am not sure it will matter in the end.

Trump made his mistake and backed away from it.

Now the Liberals are making theirs...

People screaming that ICE should be abolished plays into the hands of everyone who thinks those whacky Liberals want open borders with little or no security...

By the way, you have not told me how many of Earth's 3 Billion struggling humans we should allow into our "life boat"?

Laurie said...

I would keep immigration at its current level or maybe increase it slightly as there seems to be a little bit of a worker shortage.

Anonymous said...

The country has benefited enormously from immigration. That's why our borders are open, a policy which neither party acknowledges but both parties advocated. This is embodied by our president whose buildings were built by immigrants and who frequently marries them.

At the moment I am reading this book about the fall of the Weimar Repubic. Did I mention that here or elsewhere. In any event, the Nazi Party ran on an anti immigrant and economic isolationist policy. Sound familiar? So far, America has stopped at taking children away from their parents. But is that a pause or do we have farther to go? Does the answer depend on whether we turn over control of the Supreme Court morally unfit minority president? Is that really something anyone should want to risk?

--Hiram

John said...

Laurie,
I am fine with keeping LEGAL immigration the same or increasing it. (1+ million people per year)

Now what do you want to do about the 400,000 ILLEGAL immigrants who knowingly strive to violate our borders without permission?

Please remember that a worker shortage is GOOD. At some point it should start to drive up wages as companies compete for qualified employees.

John said...

Hiram,
No one here is anti-immigration.

The question is how many per year?

Which potential immigrants can best help America thrive?

Anonymous said...

What I am told is that the agenda of rural legislators is two pronged. They want to help their constituents but they also want to hurt the cities and the last is really the priority. So they will oppose measure they want if they contain measures that urban and suburban legislators want.

The upshot of this is that nothing happens, in a way that Republicans can blame on Democrats. This puts in play what the outside forces financing politics in Minnesota really want which is lower taxes.

--Hiram

John said...

I don’t think rural folks want to harm the metro, however light rail systems, bike paths and bridges, government buildings, and stadiums certainly may deemed excessive by many.

Sean said...

"1. Strongly encourage every citizen to learn, work and improve their lives by reducing welfare, and increasing work / training requirements.

2. Protect legal workers (jobs, incomes, etc) and the American tax payer by stopping the flow of illegal workers and removing the ones who are already here

3. Help children by promoting and supporting 2 parent families and marriage through systems of carrots and sticks.

4. Honor the religious freedom of citizens

5. Protect the lives of all babies after 20 weeks into pregnancy"

This isn't a "rural agenda". This is your agenda.

John said...

Well, as you associate with more Liberals than I do...

I associate with more rural folks than you do. :-)

By the way you are correct about #5... They would like to protect all human babies from doctor facilitated death no matter their age.

Sean said...

You have no idea how many rural folks I associate with. My larger point is that there's nothing distinctively rural about that agenda. The folks I talk to worry about things like making sure their schools are adequately funded, and that they have good transportation and things like rural broadband so their communities aren't left behind.

Anonymous said...

..
I don’t think rural folks want to harm the metro, however light rail systems, bike paths and bridges, government buildings, and stadiums certainly may deemed excessive by many.

The stadium was something rural legislators imposed on the cities. They wanted viking football, they just didn't want to pay for it. Classic rural politics.

--Hiram

Sean said...

"I don’t think rural folks want to harm the metro, however light rail systems, bike paths and bridges, government buildings, and stadiums certainly may deemed excessive by many."

Well, it's fascinating. Metro people are supposed to respect the needs and differences of rural communities, but apparently that's not supposed to go both ways. Heck, most of the bike paths the state has any involvement in funding happen to be in rural Minnesota.

Anonymous said...

They really do. I have always speculated that this was a peculiarly Minnesota thing, but Trump demonstrates it as well. There is a view that a deal isn't a good deal unless the party on the other side gets screwed. This helps to explain why Trump who is pretty good at cancelling deals has lost any capability he once might have for making one. He is too frightened of being seen as a chump, the accusation he makes against literally everyone one else who has the nerve to make commitments he has lost.

Rural legislators are like that. They represent people who need things, who want to maintain a lifestyle that they personally can't afford. But they can't find a way of doing that and still cheating the other side. Because of the numbers, it just doesn't happen.

--Hiram

Sean said...

"I have always speculated that this was a peculiarly Minnesota thing, but Trump demonstrates it as well. "

Same thing happens in Wisconsin, too, where Republicans try to pit the rest of the state against Milwaukee and Madison. It's actually been going on longer there than here.

Anonymous said...

It's a strange phenomenon to me. When I buy a thing, if I am happy with it, and I have sense the price wasn't exorbitant, I think that's just fine. I don't really care if someone makes a couple of bucks off my business. Apart from not buying Berkshire Hathaway at 30 ruing the economic decisions of my life and I think I am all the happier for it.

Trump isn't like that now. He is terrified of the notion that he will make a bad deal, that someone will or can be portrayed as taking advantage of him, to the point of obsession. The result is that he can't make deals at all anymore. All he can do is lash out. And what he fails to understand how his mental paralysis leaves him so vulnerable to the exploitation of others. He is a sad and comic figure.

--Hiram

John said...

Well I am leaving town for that really backwards state named SD. I'll ask my friends, family and neighbors about their agenda.


This is my 78 year old fathers latest community service... Lake Cochrane Golf Course He bought it and we are working to keep it running... As if the farm, lake home, etc didn't keep me busy enough when I visited. :-) Oh well, no rest for the wicked !!!

I'll get back to you with what I learn later tonight.

Here is a bit more info about the community.

Anonymous said...

Well I am leaving town for that really backwards state named SD. I'll ask my friends, family and neighbors about their agenda.

The big advantage South Dakota has over us is that it's close to Minnesota. I have a vivid recollection of those ads they used to run on the Soucheray show about how they could take advantages of all the good things Minnesota taxpayers provide without actually paying for them.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

ncreasing welfare and medicare, and fighting against work requirements.

Rural Minnesotans benefit a lot from welfare and medicare. They just leave the job of fighting for those things to the cities.

Fighting against border security and deporting illegal workers

Obviously no one benefits more or pays less of the cost of illegal workers than rural America.

Enabling the death of 2 parent families and marriage

Not even very many Republicans fantasize that they can control how people live.

Forcing religious business owners to associate closely with LGBT citizens

Rural gays like cake too.

Enabling abortions at any time during the pregnancy

Rural folks don't want to imprison girls either.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/opinion/trumps-purple-family-values.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

One of the things that it's hard for people like me to understand how someone like Trump can campaign as the candidate of family values. I thought the article above provided some insights on that. As I once heard a priest say: "It's my job to get my flock to heaven, not make them saints."

--HIram

Anonymous said...

There is an irony out there which is Trump runs well among groups for whom family values are important, whose own families are a mess. It's just at the pro life rallies, all the women who are there seem to have had abortions. Why is that exactly? Why is opposition to no fault divorce strongest among those who have had five of them? Is it because they understand the issue best, having dealt with it so many times? I think that's partly true. I think there is a form of negotiation going on. People say if I do this thing this one time, I will never do it again, and to compensate for it, I will work to make it illegal. But does this really make sense? For any logic fans out there, is it logical? Do divorce laws worsen family life? Do things not work out between spouses because they know they have an out? Do easy divorce laws make the decision to have a divorce easier? Let's just say, I have my doubts.

--Hiram

John said...

NYT Purple Family Values

John said...

Hiram,
I would think my family and friends would want to come to the Twin Cities more often since there is a lot of cool stuff there, but they really don't come very often. Maybe once every couple of years for a ball game... They seem to have enough cool stuff in SD...

As for Trump supporter families, most of the folks I know who support him are happily married. Maybe they are an anomaly.

John said...

I guess I believe that easier divorce laws and easy welfare payments do make it easier to exit or avoid the work needed to make a marriage work.

After 26 years of marriage I acknowledge that marriage has many trials and tribulations. I am pretty sure we could adjust public policy to coax / support couples through the trials.

Anonymous said...

"As for Trump supporter families, most of the folks I know who support him are happily married."

Also likely to be Caucasian and Christian. In other words, not the type of people Trump is doing his best grind under his boot heel.

Moose