General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA little known fact about Virginia's race last night that some people seem to want to ignore.
You all know who you are.
"McAuliffe defeated Cuccinelli by double-digit margins in Alexandria, Fairfax City and Falls Church and Arlington and Fairfax Counties. The former DNC chair beat his Republican opponent in Loudoun County by a 50-45 percent margin." http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/11/05/mcauliffe-defeats-cuccinelli-virginia-governors-race/
The rest of the State is decidedly red.
So can we please stop with the meme that it should have been a blowout. That color does not look good on you.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)It's a problem that exists throughout the entire country, including all of the blue states.
William769
(55,147 posts)with no easy solution. We will just have to live with it & keep beating them over the head with facts.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Even after the shutdown, the idiots in this country blame Obama and the Dems and will continue voting Republican.
My brother-in-law who has an MBA in a Northern blue state is a prime example. He's by no means rich, but always repeats "Dems give all my money away to lazy welfare people" and we throw facts at him until we are blue in the face and it never makes a difference. 
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)It takes a constant input to maintain that bubble he's in.
The Murdock Era is about to end and the board may decide to dump the propaganda channel because it hurts the brand.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)We've had huge fights, we've hung up on each other and my husband still baits him. I'll get my digs in, but he's a lost cause.
Never can state facts...he really believes that...I don't even want to repeat what he said when Katrina happened...it still makes me want to puke.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
harun
(11,348 posts)Racism, religion, bigotry, greed, violence and misogynism.
You can't promote these and still get the urban vote.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....is because all of their money is going to support lazy people in the "inner cities".
(You can guess what color they are)
Republicans have been playing that game for generations and it's just accepted as FACT by people.
We started to crack through to them when Willie Nelson did "Farm Aid" and I really believe another drive in that direction could have an impact. Take on agribusiness head on and bring back the idea of the family farm.
Lex
(34,108 posts)that accounts for part of the rural vote going for Republicans. The dog-whistles about "welform reform" and the like that Republicans talk about feed into it. The sad thing is that much of the time the rural white vote is voting exactly against themselves in reality.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Think about it. Here they are sitting on land that has been passed down in the family since the 1880s and because some political party suckered them that the commies were coming for their guns and Bibles....
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)If only their local and national media would be honest with them and if only Rush and FOX could be blacked out from their listening ears.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The "Rural Vote" is won one vote at a time. We are not all greedy bigots controlled by religion, but it sure feels lonely out here.
It seems it is not cost effective to aim time and dollars at the hearts and minds of people who prefer a rural lifestyle.
There are no sound bytes for the rural voters. There are no high profile visits. Pretty much we are alone in areas that need democrats to win just as much as any inner city. We are not population condensed and ignored most of the election cycle.
Rural poverty is not a romantic picture.
The republicans offer hope. It may be wrong headed. It may cause people to vote themselves in the foot. (So to speak). It is attention.
Thank you,
Rural dem voter.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)and it is definitely a grassroots one vote at a time efffort.
locally, we have neighborhood groups (lots!) on facebook. it is a huge drama fest - but when folks are really needing community support, locals do step up to help one another out and to provide facts on issues. with yesterday's election we voted on a slew of measures that were so invasive & wrong the people rallied and voted them all down (by an 80% margin!)
this campaign was successful primarily by word of mouth. also, a whole lot of discussion occurred beforehand on fb and amonst neighbors. there was a >50% voter turnout - which is impressive. past non candidate elections have ranged between 20% - low 40's.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Gun Violence Prevention: In the National Rife Association’s home state, McAuliffe made no secret of his strong support for universal background checks for gun purchases. In an October debate at Virginia Tech, site of the 2007 shootings that killed 32 people, Cuccinelli made it clear that he he opposed universal background checks and was proud of his “A” rating from the NRA. After Cuccinelli noted McAuliffe’s “F” rating from group, the Democrat responded forcefully, saying, “I don’t care what grade I got from the NRA. As governor, I want to make sure our communities are safe. I never want to see another Newtown or Aurora or Virginia Tech ever again.” The NRA’s political arm spent more than half a million dollars on the race, running ads claiming that McAuliffe would “take away your freedom” and “ration guns.” Independence USA PAC, a group created by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) to fight against illegal guns, spent more than $1.7 million on ads critical of Cuccinelli’s opposition to background checks.
<...>
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/11/05/2873211/mcauliffes-victory-progressive/
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)God (through their tax dodging preacher) tells them to vote for the good Christian repuke, regardless if he favors starving the children, refusing medical care for the sick, and sending young men to die in unneeded wars.... You know, just like Jesus would've done.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I didn't realize repukes were so popular among very religious Muslims, Jews and African Americans.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I don't recall seeing that many RURAL RED STATE Muslims out driving their tractors to the....
I was addressing rural white voters in red (white) states for the most part. I don't see how you could not follow what I was getting at instead of....
Never mind, have a nice day.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)important factor is religion, not the fact that they're rural.
"Red, rural areas are often the most religious, therefore they'll vote red every time"
the logical argument in your post, as I read it:
Red, rural areas are often the most religious
the most religious areas vote red every time
therefore, red rural areas will vote red every time.
But that argument doesn't really work, because the most religious areas ( and I'm thinking of ones that AREN'T rural) don't vote red every time. In those cases, it's not necessarily the fact that people ARE very religious, it specifically depends on which religion they are.
In reality, very religious white Christians tend to vote red, and they do so whether they live in the city or the country, they are just a much larger demographic among the rural populations and thus have a larger influence on the vote there.
I believe the point I thought you were making (where they live is less important than their race and religion) is right, you just weren't clear on which religion or race you were talking about. After rereading your post, it is pretty obvious, though, which groups you meant.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Was the fault of republican policies and actions and not Obama's fault.
When they think they're fighting for more freedom for themselves - they are actually fighting for more freedom for polluters. Gutting the EPA isn't going to create jobs. They need to understand that Obamacare is insurance oversight and not just health care reform.
They have to be informed of these (and a few other facts) in a subtle manner. Of course they need to understand that gun control is necessary, but that isn't the same thing as the government taking their hunting rifle. There has to be some middle ground that they are willing to accept that makes us safer.
At least that's what I think we need to do.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Of course they need to understand that gun control is necessary, but that isn't the same thing as the government taking their hunting rifle. There has to be some middle ground that they are willing to accept that makes us safer.
And the idea that you think you know what they need is a big part of the problem.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)In rural areas of low population density, gun ownership is a social value - hunting traditions - but also a secirity issue in that many live in isolated areas with small police presences. These areasbdo tend to vote Republican and this is an important part of their identity. Population centers.don't have these same traditions or secirity concerns, except that most murders/masacres occur in these areas. I'm OK with majority rule on the issue of gun control. If you don't like the majority position on guns, move to a place that supports your view. The 2nd Amemdment was a product of 18th century reality...way past time to bring ot into the 21st century.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)tradition. Guns are handed down through families. I'm a gun owner, but not a gun nut. I hate the NRA as does my husband. He has three guns that belonged to his grandfathers. His dad passing them down to him was a big deal when it was done. My dad passed his father's guns to my brother, and my brother to his son. It's a rite of passage for young men in the rural south. My dad no longer owns any guns and my brother and his son aren't gun nuts or NRA members. My nephew is actually as liberal as I am and that's left of Gandhi.
Speaking of security - my brother actually has to carry a gun to his mail box because of the bears.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)condescension are a big part of the problem. How's it working for you?
Blanks
(4,835 posts)If you have something that you think WOULD work. You could have posted it with your comment.
Or are you one of those people who find fault with the suggestions of others, yet have no ideas of your own?
What is the solution to bringing more gun-toting rural conservatives over to the land of reason? if you are so certain that I don't know what it is, then you must know.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)since you think there is a problem that I need to come up with a solution for. You're the one do the hand-wringing, not me.
I've yet to see a gun-toting rural conservative commit mass murder or use a gun in any way that is harmful to someone else.
You don't even understand the problem, much less have a viable solution.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I'll put it down to poor reading comprehension skills.
The problem isn't solving the mass murders by gun-toting rural conservatives (because that hasn't been a problem). The problem is convincing conservatives in rural areas that the democrats aren't after their guns so that these rural folks will support democratic candidates.
I'm sure if you'll read back through you'll see - that was the issue/problem that was being addressed. Perhaps you can explain to me why a campaign convincing rural conservatives that the democrats aren't trying to take their guns wouldn't work to turn more rural areas blue.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)do want to take their guns and unless you get the NRA on board the message will not get through. Every time there is a mass shooting, the liberals start talking about gun control..... that hardly convinces conservatives that Democrats don't want to take their guns. Democrats are ineffective in getting a message out. The NRA is great at it. They suck, but they are good at messaging.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Which is the point that I was making in the beginning. There are a couple of rural issues (freedom, taxes, guns and abortions) that the democrats seem to just let go in the fight for votes in rural areas.
Any time you see a democrat win in a red state - you can look back through their campaign footage and find an ad with them toting a hunting rifle (Kerry did it too).
We just need to reach out and assure the rural folk - that we aren't after their third generation hunting rifle. Also the single issue anti-gun crowd needs to look at the gun issue from someone else's perspective.
We need to have a conversation about it. That's how problems are solved.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)liberals who do want to take away guns and conservatives know that. The anti-gun crowd is quite loud and you can't assure "rural folk" that they aren't a danger to their right to own a gun because in fact they are.
Rural folks resent being nothing but a vote and that's how it often comes across. Those of us who live rural have a whole different set of problems and issues than do people who live in urban areas and we would prefer to have someone who actually cares about our issues as opposed to just bullshitting us for a vote. I happen to be a rarity....a gun owning liberal who lives rural. I have little in common with the people who live around me but we manage to get along because we choose to ignore those differences.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)In these rural areas the pastors are preaching politics from pulpit. It is hard to reach people who are being taught God is against the Dems, and homosexuality will bring Armegedon.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Also bust up the consolidated media back into smaller bite sized chunks.
Once people get something other than 24/7 ReichWingNutJob radio they will be able to actually assess the value of BOTH sides of the arguments. That smart ones will reject the lies.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)I'm in the northcentral (Alabama) section of PA. You should see some of the letters they write to the Sun Gazette. They like to fantasize that the rural areas support the Philly and Pittsburgh population centers with all sorts of financial welfare.
FSogol
(45,485 posts)
edhopper
(33,579 posts)that is because in a rational world (and not the real world we are in0 I would hope that few people could vote for such a reactionary, radical fundamentalist like Cuccinelli.
That it would be hard to find many women who would support a man who wants to make them less than citizens.
(Then again I don't see how anyone making under 6 figures could vote for Romney)
William769
(55,147 posts)And explain to me why that wasn't a blow out in Virginia or other swing States for that matter.
President Obama is a Great leader, but your just not going to get blow outs like some people seem to want to believe.
I honestly think the real reason is some people just don't like McAuliffe and since they can't gloat that he lost they are doing the next best thing. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I don't love the guy, but look at the alternative! 
William769
(55,147 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)McAuliffe is a deeply flawed candidate who was running against a crazy bagger. The polls however, did indicate that McAuliffe's marging of victory would be more like 7 points than 2.
Qutzupalotl
(14,311 posts)especially where access to voting is getting more restricted. Why challenge your purge if your candidate is going to cruise to victory, that's how I imagine the thinking goes. Believing the bad guy has no chance is how he manages to sneak up on you.
Then again, people want to vote for a winner, so 
juajen
(8,515 posts)Don't forget that in those red counties, the local Clerk of Court is in charge of the voting, including central tabulators. I was worried about that from the beginning. I am thrilled he won, considering that there was bound to be some shenanigans.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)So the polls were mostly all full of shit. And on I think Chris Hayes' show, he had numbers that showed almost identical margins and demographics from 2012 to 2013. So the end result is be happy, we won in a purple state in an historical fashion.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)It could still go R easily enough and might have if Cuchinelli wasn't a hard core right to lifer.
All the cities of decent size went for TM, excepting Winchester. Little ponds of blue in a red field.
Pryderi
(6,772 posts)hooverville29
(163 posts)Cuccinelli said so last night, but I doubt it was Obama's speeches late in the campaign. But we shouldn't kid ourselves. The Health Care program is *not* all that popular in Virginia, even in northern Virginia.
tina tron
(160 posts)and know your history you know that is a false statement. Check out the southside Virginia counties that are majority African American, Surry, Sussex. They are about as rural as you can get and they always vote blue. Always. There is a whole block of counties in southside Virginia that votes blue and if you examine a large map of the southern states you will see why. It's the former cotton belt and these residents of these blue counties are descendents of slaves. Look at what counties went for Obama in the south and you will see this belt, from the Mississippi river delta through Alabama up through the Carolinas and into Virginia. Giving credit only to the liberals of Northern Virginia is dishonest and unfair.
gopiscrap
(23,760 posts)
calimary
(81,265 posts)Glad you're here! I'm just happy to hear it's not as hopelessly red across the board in Virginia aside from the northern counties! I'm glad there's at least a little bit of encouragement.
But I've gotta say - I can understand the red part, and at the same time I CANNOT understand it. I'm just at a loss to understand why or how these folks believe the things they believe, here in the 21st Century. NOTHING of it makes sense to me.
I don't understand the clinging to religion to explain things that have nothing to do with religion, like science.
I don't understand the urge to sublimate women, crush our progress and deny the rights we fought so hard to win (even while we came up short on things like the Equal Rights Amendment). This isn't the Bronze Age, folks!
I don't understand the infantile denial of global warming.
I don't understand the basic idea that fuels some of these folks - who seem excited by all the cataclysm in the weather and the increasing unrest in the world because it means Jesus can be induced to come back sooner than later. Like He's some sort of Heavenly Cleaning Man or Mr. Fix-It or something. In Catholic school I was taught that no one forces the Hand of God, and God isn't subject to OUR timelines, and it's not for us to know when the End Times are near.
I don't understand the poor sportsmanship - if you can't win on the issues, then rig the vote. Then cheat. Then game the system.
I don't understand the earnestness to deny whole swaths of legitimate voters the right to vote.
I don't understand the relentless embrace of slavery and sublimation of an entire group of people - and the longing to have those "good old days" back.
I don't understand the wish to keep certain blocks of the population as a permanent underclass, to deny them rights and citizenship and full participation. They're HERE. They're fellow human beings. They are affected by every law, every convention, every government act, everything. They participate in the system and help prop it up from WAY down underneath. They should have a voice, and not be silenced.
I don't understand how a whole segment of the population is presumed not to be worthy of loving and building a life with whom they wish. That it's up to some arbitrary external approval and judgmental system what they're allowed to do in the privacy of their homes and their lives.
I don't understand the wish to homeschool just so you can avoid things that are taught in conventional school and fill your unsuspecting yet trusting children's innocent minds with all kinds of Neanderthal crap that they grow up with and accept as their reality.
I don't understand the denial of this "War of Northern Aggression" crap. BULLSHIT. The denial of reality is just astonishing to me!!! The wish to rewrite history is just anathema to me! Hey, facts are facts, folks! Sometimes you don't like 'em, and that's just how it is. We have facts to face on our side that we don't like, either, but we had to accept them and get over it and cope. The entire bush/cheney era comes to mind. The reality behind "St. ronnie" comes to mind. And it goes on from there!
I just don't understand it. I know it's all for real. But it makes NO sense to me.
No sense at all. Just don't understand it. Don't understand how the teabaggers and others of their ilk can feel this way. Don't understand their hate. Don't understand their WILLFUL ignorance - even PROUD ignorance. Don't understand it. Don't know if I ever will.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)later admit they were incorrect. It's the same set of 'experts' who always claim to know in advance what can and can not be done in an election. The same people who declared that it was going to be a huge margin of victory also dictated that we had no chance at all in NJ so we should not 'invest' there at all. They were not correct in VA. What if they were off in NJ as well? What if predictions from 'experts' are in reality not worth listening to at all?
When I see Christie's victory being celebrated on DU it makes me sick. This is a Democratic board.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I think my way of posting on the subject on a particular thread was garbled, and I explained a bit more in another post on that thread.
So now that this is cleared up, did you see others on DU "celebrating" a Christie win? Because I sure didn't.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)die hard liberals and die hard conservatives were not happy with both VA and NJ outcomes. If you did not intend to be celebrating Christie, you should have written more carefully.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)To break a 4 decade trend in VA in an off-off year is impressive considering how flawed McAuliffe is. Think how well we could do with solid, progressive Dems and similar support in the elections noone is watching?
StrayKat
(570 posts)The map looks like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/2013-elections/demographics/
Norfolk in the Southeast always goes blue. Richmond, once the cradle of the old South, has gone blue in the last few elections. Notice the small dots spread throughout the state that represent the more population dense cities. The college towns like Charlottesville and Roanoake went as blue or more blue than the northern counties.
http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsCTY.aspx?type=SWR&rid=315&osn=4&map=CTY
At one time it was fair to say that the concentration of blue was all in No. Va., but not anymore. There is a real shift that has been happening, but perhaps not as quickly as those on the left would like.
Nay
(12,051 posts)of the huge university complex downtown (lots of students from everywhere else), and the fact that it also has a large black population. The same is true for several southern VA counties like Surrey, etc. These areas are blue not because the southern white population is finally getting its shit straight. They are blue because they DON'T have a majority of your regular southern white population.
There are also small city islands (Charlottesville, Harrisonburg) that vote Dem because of universities and/or educated white and black folks.
I'm not sure why, but Nelson and Albemarle Counties in the Shenandoah Valley are also blue. I will guess that it's because many wealthier retired DC workers retire there; there are wineries sprouting up, etc., and I think these voters are transplants and well-educated.
IMO, a huge influx of outsiders to desirable areas of the state is really what is changing in VA, not the minds of the locals.
StrayKat
(570 posts)What difference does it make if Virginia turns blue because of a change of heart from the old residents or a change of demographics? Either way there are an increasing number of people who live in Virginia who lean left. Old, white, right wing Southerners are being phased out one way or another.
Nay
(12,051 posts)if the influx keeps enough rational voters around. I guess my point was that the old white guard here has not changed much at all, and frankly, for progress to truly take place there has to be a huge social change (not just a political numbers game change). The Democrats have been pretty poor at advocating such changes, and that will always cause them real damage in close elections.
Again, what difference does it make? If politics are changing because of a change in population, then social change can and is likely to happen for the same reasons. An increase in the number of left voting people corresponds to an increase in people with liberal ideals. I don't see the difference.
Most old right wingers won't change. But, they will die out. In their place there are more and more people who hold different ideas. Young people with more education and exposure to different cultures. Immigrants who are tired of being unfairly treated by the GOP. Women who will fight back against the war being waged on them. Non-christians who are sick of the "Christian nation" mantra in a country of constitutional secularism. Poor people who know their biggest problem is not that they have too much money and get too many freebies.
The social change will happen with the political change.
Nay
(12,051 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Add two points and the win becomes even more impressive:
1 - An off year election. Republicans tend to turn out more in off year elections than Democrats.
2 - The successful demagoguery against healthcare.gov and ACA/Obamacare in general.
This is a big victory considering everything.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)cilla4progress
(24,731 posts)where I live.
I suspect it's true in every state: urban / rural split. Some states have more rural than others... 
Iggo
(47,552 posts)
(
)
BumRushDaShow
(128,979 posts)Because that's what they said on teevee. 
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Not EVERYONE in the sticks is a mouth breathing dittoheaded Teahadist.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)My family (mother, father, sister and brother) of birther/tea party FOX worshippers lives in northern VA. If those in rural areas are anything like them there's no hope of getting them to vote for a democrat....because they are a democrat. They'd possibly vote for a third party either libertarian or tea party but never a dem. Which could be a useful strategy to turn the state blue maybe?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....realizing he voted for the same party as the guy in bib overalls with a silo in his yard.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
phylny
(8,380 posts)We need one of those maps, too, that show population density, not land area, to understand why it looks like a sea of red. There's lots of mountains and hills in them, uh, hills.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)a Democratic President was in the White House!
Pretty big deal to me!
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I wouldn't call these deep blue areas.... in fact they are quite conservative. What they do have that the rural areas don't is lots of schools and colleges and education. And lots of educated young people.
tina tron
(160 posts)These people tend to vote for Democrats. for one because they don't see the Federal government like some evil bloated beast like Republican conspiracy theorists do and for two, out of self preservation.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)They had to be voting party-line only, because if all those folks actually believed what Cuccinelli espoused we need to send a thousand psychiatrists to Virginia. Split them up among those red counties. Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia needs to open up secondary and college class rooms in each of those red counties. Teach those people how to think. Pry open their minds!
On the other hand, I wonder how many votes were cast in those counties. What is the population of the voting age persons in those counties? How many of the voting age persons were registered to vote? How many of those registered actually showed up to vote?
I think it is high time the Democratic Party figures out why red states are red. Find out why and then change it. Start in one red state. Virginia would be the perfect place to start. 
Qutzupalotl
(14,311 posts)From what I can see, most of the emotions backing the heated political debates have less to do with politics and more to do with cultural differences. True conservatives are all about cutting spending and limiting federal power, which I can respect but still disagree with; but the vast majority of RW voters turn out so as to deny a win to the caricature of liberals that they hate. Generally, our side is better informed about the consequences of political shifts, but there's plenty of that fear-mongering and caricaturing on our side too. The segregated "bubble" nature of our media is not helping and does not serve us.
Something that could help us get in the mindset of RW voters is to consider that they are willing to deny their self-interest and turn out for divisive social issues because they sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing. They think banning abortion and gay sex will grant the state divine blessings, that will lessen god's wrath during storms and economic downturns. Likewise, the fervor on our side to win is fueled by the belief that we are doing the right things, such as expanding health care to the poor and protecting women's right — not so much to placate a deity, but doing good for its own sake. So the voters on both sides believe they are doing the right thing, and that includes stopping people they see as doing the wrong things. If you can see both sides and understand your opponent's motivation, you're on your way to bridging the divide, and maybe you'll be able to see a solution.
I have to point out here that the RW voter is far different from the RW policymaker, which as we have seen is craven and willing to win at any cost; but the RW voters are looking for a way to do good as they see it. So perhaps we can find a way to offer both sides a seeming win, or frame the results of policy completely out of the realm of partisanship. McAuliffe is on his way to doing that if his pragmatic approach works.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)So where do you find a win for both sides?
Qutzupalotl
(14,311 posts)and then see if there is any common ground. If there is, it's probably worth trying to find a way, not to score points, not to obliterate the other side, but to do what elected officials are sent to do; just the work of governing. You might, for instance, allow them to save face with their constituents instead of insisting that they completely capitulate and humiliate themselves. Bipartisan results are accomplishments that candidates can point to in the next election, and which have broader appeal outside of our base. That has the advantage of making the next election cycle less negative, more about who has better ideas and solutions rather than just attacks.
I would add that one-sided solutions are often temporary; when the pendulum of popular opinion swings the other way, the other team comes in and undoes all your work. But if they're invested in a shared outcome, they'd be more inclined work to improve it instead.
All this is predicated on the other side also being reasonable. So this doesn't work with Tea Party candidates, since they seem to have sworn to destroy Democrats and never work together — but we are starting to see that strategy backfire in some cases.
As lukewarm as I am about McAuliffe, he did reach out to the other side in his victory speech, which I thought was gracious. We will see if he is met with cooperation. The Virginia legislature is still tilted far to the right; they might feel they can override a veto, and thus have no incentive to work together. We will have to see. But for his part, I think McAuliffe is up to it.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I think that the way the economy is going down, down, down, that that, more than anything, is what's going to turn the red states around. Education & hard times. Thanks for your kind discussion.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)At least that is what I was told by people in Richmond.
If you recall, Grant and Lee fought it out between Washington and Richmond.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Well I don't understand how anyone would, but women? People voting against their own interests, I guess.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)It's really that simple. Christianity and Republicanism have been conflated.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)There is no way to spin that as anything besides a victory. If this was a general election it would have been a high singles or doubt digit blow out.
DinahMoeHum
(21,787 posts)And it took a significant step with that last night.
Mike Daniels
(5,842 posts)to put Webb over the top.
All those little rural areas plus the Hampton Roads area cancel out the urban centers when it comes to population advantage.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The first two are easy, the Rural North and the Rural South, prior to the 1960s, both rural areas voted the way their shot in 1861 and both parties depended on it. The GOP then adopted almost all of the planks of the old Dixiecrat party of 1948 to get Rural Southerns to vote GOP. Thus the first time since Reconstruction the GOP controls both houses of the State of Alabama became GOP only in 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Legislature
Thus the South, to this day, is heavily Democratic in local elections, on state and national elections they vote GOP.
The Rural North, is mostly the first born son of older farmers. The Rural north was much more progressive prior to WWII, but mechanization, the Great Depression and the labor demands of WWII (and support Veterans received at the end of WWII in form of the original GI BIll), you saw a massive out flux from rural America to urban America. The 1920 Census was the first census that shows more Americans living in Urban Area then Rural Area, but even in the 1960 census 40% of Americans live d in Rural Areas. Today day it is less then 20%.
Please note, the Census bureau INCLUDES small towns of more then 2000 people as "Urban Area", thus you have huge areas of California that are called "Urban Counties" that if you travel through them is mile sand miles of farmland. The workers on these farms live in the Small Towns and thus residents of "Urban Areas" while they drive to the farms to work. You see this in California and the Grain belt extensively.
When most people moved off the farm, they did NOT go to these small towns, but to large urban areas for the actual residents of Rural America 1900-1960 were much more progressive then the residents of small town America.
Now, in the South a similar pattern has occurred, but you have a lot of areas NOT conductive to large industrial level farming. This is also true of most of Appalachian. These areas produce the excess workers for the larger farms and for any rural industry in the area.
On top of this, in around most urban areas the first "ring" of farms around the Urban areas are people who work in the urban areas, but want to live on a small farm. Like the people in Appalachian and in the Rural South outside of the large farms, these tend to be small farmers on 50 or less acres whose main source of income in work from elsewhere (in the first "Ring" around urban areas, the urban area). These rural residents are heavily divided into two groups, what I call true small farmers, people who want to work the land, but know they have to work in the city to pay for the land they want to work (these tend to be progressive Democrats, but also older Democrats most having been raised on a farm and moved to the city or their parents had made the move) and GOP yuppie types who wants a big house with cheap taxes (They may have a large yard, but no animals except for dogs, cats and maybe a horse, The Horse is often stabled elsewhere).
Thus I have identified four different "Rural" residents:
1. Southerns, who live to far from an Urban area to Commute
2. Northerns who live to far from an Urban area to commute
3. Residents of Appalachian.
4. People in all three of the above areas who do live in Commuting distance of urban area
And a Fifth group. Residents of Small towns called "Urban Centers" by the Census bureau. Technically these are NOT rural residents as far as the US Census bureau is concern, but to most people they are.
All five of these groups are different, the Firth Group the Small town of 2000 or more people tend to be the most Republican for they view themselves like a Suburb without a burb. Low Income people do NOT tend to live in such Small Urban centers, most of the poor live in the actual rural areas around those urban centers for that is where the cheap housing is. Give up on the Urban Centers, they are almost at the level of a high end Suburb when it comes to who lives they. The people in these 2000 plus populated small cities tend to be the strongest Tea parties for they do not see themselves as dependent on the Government, for most Government benefits hit them indirectly, i.e. taking care of the poor, who tend to live outside of these towns.
Let me address the first three areas, residents of all three areas that are to far to commute tend to be solidly GOP at the present time, but progressive GOP, they want better schools and better transportation. They see the poor among them and want to help the poor. In Coal mining areas they tend to Vote GOP for they see the GOP as supporting Coal mining and other rural industry. In non-coal mining areas such rural areas tend to be small. for they are dependent in the large farms around them OR some sort of "industry" which can include a National Park or a Military base. The west is full of these "Rural Industry", but each tend to be quite small for they are exploiting some local product, just like the coal patches support the coal mines. They tend to be solidly Republican, but not of the radical right wing type. You od run across really right winger out in the boon docks, but the other locals tend to avoid them.
These Rural Residence depend on Social Security, medicare, Medicaid and welfare at the same rate as the inner city (in fact when polls are taken such true rural residents tend to vote the same an inner city residents). In my area of Pennsylvania, the GOP chairmen always joke about the true Rural Areas, as being solidly Democratic for most of them are old Steel Workers or Coal Miners. Yes, you run across people who want to shot people but they are rarer then people like to think
Now, in many ways the Black Belt south shows this. The Black Belt is a belt of Black earth from Georgia to Arkansas and Texas right through the middle of the States of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi (The Northern and Southern third of the those two states are NOT in the Black belt, and only extends to Arkansas not quite to its western border, and about the same distance into East Texas). This was the richest farmland in the South. It was the Heart of the old Rural South. Slaves were imported to pick cotton in this belt more then any other part of the south. After the Civil War, most African Americans who had been slaves in this are, stayed in this area and became Share croppers (along with a large number of whites). Thus even as late as WWII there were more African Americans in this belts then whites (and in the State of Mississippi more African Americans then whites in the whole state). The African Americans tend to be concentrated in the rural areas, the while population in the County Seats or other "Urban Centers". When mechanization took place, most of the White Population stayed in their urban cores, while the African Americans in the true rural areas moved north.
Now, when Mississippi was majority African Americans, the Government of Mississippi adopted a policy of divide and conquer. Since the whites were in the Urban centers, the Government of Mississippi expanded those borders so they meet in some Cotton Field. This divided the Rural African American vote in half. One half in one "City" the other half of any rural community in another. This kept the County electing white from the White dominated center. Just a comment that you have to keep the idea that true rural residents are different from the people in the urban centers, much like high end suburbs of cities are different from inner city neighborhoods.
NOW, with mechanization, the jobs of rural workers were eliminated, thus the African Americas who use to work in the fields moved north starting during WWI. Mississippi then became majority white, as the white population stayed in their urban centers, while the African Americans moved from their more rural settings. That is true even of areas with White Rural Population instead of African American Rural Populations,. the Rural population is demands more from Government, more dependent on Social Security and other Government Benefits, and thus tend to vote Democratic. On the other hand the urban centers tend to be nothing more then rich "suburbs" of these rural areas and vote heavily GOP.
Thus, it is possible to get true rural residents to vote for the Democratic Party, I suspect most true rural areas already do that. In my home state of Pennsylvania, in almost every rural county that goes GOP, over a 1/3 of the vote is still Democratic. In the old coal mining areas it is more on the line of 50% (Areas where most coal mines are now closed down and the young people have moved elsewhere).
The fourth area is a mess. You have large new homes for Yuppies mixed among older farms whose value is excessive for anyone but yuppies to buy. The Yuppies, are NOT social conservatives, but Economic Conservatives. Do the prices of the homes in the area, this area has very few poor people except if the area had a history of rural industry (coal mining or coke makings, both of which were big in Western Pennsylvania and produced hundreds of "Coal Patches" where low income people tend to live). This area is both suburban and rural, the rural areas progressive, the suburban area heavy economic conservative.
My point is you have to address each of these areas differently. Give up on the small cities, they are high end Suburbia (Also note the difference between Coal Patches and other rural low income small towns, those tend to be more Democratic). Give up on Corporate farms (through in the South most Corporate farms are in Counties with High African American rural populations for that is who was replaced by machinery during mechanization of those large farms).
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If one takes the polling history, the final results look about right. The polls right before the election seem to be the outliers.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/elections/2013/general/virginia/map.html
Rex
(65,616 posts)First time in 100 years Virginia and the WH are both BLUE!
WEWONWEWONWEWONWEWONWEWON!!!! I am so SORRY if that hurts a few peoples feelings here...what? You don't like it when DEMS win!?!? 
BUTBUTBUT...BUT NOTHING! WE WON!
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)19 years since both were blue (Gov. Wilder/President Clinton)
48 years since a blue Governor (Mills Godwin) was elected while a blue President (Lyndon Johnson) was in office.
Zeke L Brimstone
(89 posts)A 1-nil victory in football counts precisely as much as a 5-nil win.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)IronLionZion
(45,442 posts)Did all those rural counties and precincts forget they were supposed to vote Republican? Maybe they didn't get the memo.
I posted another thread here about McAuliffe campaigning his way through rural Virginia in a small 4 seat plane as Democrats tend to do.
Rural Democrats exist.