Why does the press keep treating the Democrats' lack of strength in rural areas as a major problem

[StarfishSaver]

while not treating Republicans' failure to win urban areas as if it's no big deal, not even worth mentioning?

Never mind. I think I know the answer.

[empedocles]

1. The Senate is a problem, but not the issue you're probably thinking of

[Desert grandma]

2. There are significantly more voters

in the urban and suburban areas than in the rural areas. The press seems to do this crap either for ratings or to promote conflict.

[Moostache]

3. The Senate functioned up until the point that Moscow Mitch was instructed to kill it...

The body managed to survive, relatively intact for 230 years...through civil and world wars, through depressions and uprisings, through riots and racial strife...but in the end, it could not survive the fact that an asshole from Kentucky's decision to place financial and political gain ahead of everything the Senate once stood for and to drive a stake through its heart.

As it now sits, the GOP has discovered that they no longer need to bother competing on ideas or in quaint things like elections when they can command control of the legislative agenda entirely through capturing a plurality of votes from roughly 22% of the total population.

Unless and until the filibuster is killed off, the Senate will remain a total wasteland, headed by men from small states, with small minds and more importantly small overall price tags to be bought off for...

[gratuitous]

4. Rural areas are where the real Americans are

Duh!

[StarfishSaver]

5. Yep

And we know what "urban" really means.

[mcar]

6. Jonathan Capehart was on MSNBC today talking about his column

https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/10/what-do-black-women-voters-want/

He made a similar point - that Dems are always criticized for not going after rural (white) voters, while Rs are never told they should be trying to get black women's votes.

The host, Craig Melvin, actually said (one assumes with a straight face - I was listening on Sirius), "well, Republicans have tried to reach out, at least a little bit." Paraphrasing.

Republicans get media credit for things they aren't doing - always.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. If Republicans have "tried to reach out" to urban voters

Democrats have- at times- bent over f**king backwards trying to win rural voters- to little or no avail.

[Crunchy Frog]

7. It's a problem from the standpoint of winning and wielding political power.

It seems to be an asset to the R's in terms of electoral votes, and Senate and House seats, enabling them to win control of these bodies, even while winning fewer votes.

This is very much a problem for the Dems who often get more votes while still failing to win the presidency, or control over the legislature.

The sad truth is that the Dems need rural votes more than the R's need urban ones.

[StarfishSaver]

8. That's not the frame they use, though

They always talk about this in the context of being out of touch with "real Americans." They also ignore the fact that as the country's demographics change, their inability/lack of interest in appealing to more diverse populations in urban areas is becoming a greater problem for Republicans.

In other words, the medias obsession with connecting with rural voters and disregard for connecting with urban areas is based on something other than what you're suggesting, imo.

[gulliver]

9. Yes

And there is no reason we can't get rural votes, especially in 2020 with the Republican Trade War. Republicans are bad for family farming. Their trade war is taking away hard won market share. Small farm operations are being bought out by investors. Local control of land use standards is being taken away. Trump is a chance to take back rural America...there's no reason Dems shouldn't have both the city and the country folks.