The Democrats were losing rural America long before the Russians ever got involved

[davidn3600]

You can't sit in these big cities where Hillary got 80% of the vote and claim to understand America. This is a very big country where political opinions change with geography. I am certain when you look around NYC and Baltimore and L.A. it feels like the election was stolen because you can't find any Trump voters. But go to rural Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan or Florida and its just the opposite. You can't find any Hillary voters. These people are cheering for Donald Trump because he's at least giving them a voice while the Democrats give the finger and call them "deplorable."

Scores of Democrats and liberals from Michael Moore to Bernie Sanders to even Bill Clinton has been warning for months on end that there is an anger out there in rural America that is being missed. Instead, Hillary's campaign and the DNC paid no attention to such warnings. They thought they could overwhelm the rural vote by running up big numbers in the cities and with women and minorities. Well....that strategy failed.

So instead of paying more attention to rural America, you feel more inclined to double-down on the same flawed and failed strategy and blame the Russians for the loss?

It's not the Russian's fault 53% of white women voted for Trump.
It's not the Russian's fault 35% of Latinos in Florida voted for Trump.
It's not the Russian's fault Hillary lost 85% of the nation's counties.

[kimbutgar]

1. But the only radio in these rural states are blasting only right wing radio contributed to the

Rethug Control. We drove a couple of summers ago in a rental car from DC down to Williamsburg va and back only thing on the radio was right wing talkers and religious freaks. We finally got a rock station that was tolerable. After that experience after renting cars we always pay extra for Sirius if we drive long distances.

[FarCenter]

11. If there was a left wing AM talk radio station, would anyone listen to it?

I think it was tried a decade or so ago, with miserable results.

[kimbutgar]

16. There are some good left wing talkers

Air America was abandoned before it took off. It took a lot of years for right wing radio to take root and was supported even though they list money.

Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, and Rachel Naddow all came from Air America. Everywhere they play on terrestrial they have high ratings. Where I live we had a left station green 960 had good ratings and right after Obama was elected clear channel replaced the channel with beck and right wing talkers and the ratings went to zero.

[FarCenter]

23. Chapter 11 in 2006 and Chapter 7 in 2010

[YOHABLO]

79. You need to do some research my friend because that's not true.

[True_Blue]

12. You hit the nail on the head!

They listen to talk radio when they drive and turn on Fox news as soon as they get home. They believe Sandy Hook was a conspiracy to take their guns, Obama started ISIS and the Clintons have sex slaves in a pizza parlor. Any legitimate news source is discarded as liberal propaganda. There's no way we can reach out to these people using facts or reason. They suffer from cognitive dissonance.

[JimBeard]

24. The rural areas are in a downward spiral.

The more commerical media spreads in an area, the more they listen to the conservative media and then there are more conservative voters.

The local newspapers are very republican because that is where their readers are. They all feed off each other. Goes the same way with regional reporting.

As far as the fake news on Facebook goes, the more intelligent people know it is fake by simple intelligence.
They then purposefully reinforce the lie to less intelligent workers in a workplace setting.

In a workplace setting, the boss can convince the workers that the news is real. It isn't everyone reads it but is purposely spread as fact by "Higher ups".

[hollowdweller]

44. Rural areas are in the same state as urban areas in the 80's

The oxycontin/opiate thing is just like the crack thing was in the 80's. Part people doing it do to hopelessness and then part people selling it due to the lack of good jobs.

The GOP and even conservative dems blamed the rap culture and the fact so many were on gov't benefits for the problems with the inner cities.

You could just as easily say the confederate flag waving, in your face, redneck on SSI living in a trailer in bumfuckt with a bunch of illegitimate kids knocking off the local store for drug money is the equivalent of the "welfare queen" and "super predator" of the 80's. There is definately an element of celebrating ignorance and a hostility to education in the current redneck culture.

Also it is interesting US intelligence was involved in Central America during the 80's cocaine epidemic and we are involved in Afghanistan and the middle east during this Heroin epidemic.

[brooklynite]

25. Disagree

RW talk radio doesn't convince people to be conservatives; it reinforces biases and opinions that theyalready had.

[True_Blue]

64. I agree

They already have their biases & opions, and they only watch news from sites/radio/tv that reaffirm their biases. So when these sources tell them conspiracy theories like the Clintons keep sex slaves in a pizza parlor and Obama is a Muslim from Kenya that founded ISIS, they believe it's real news.

[Cosmocat]

84. Correct

nm

[Raster]

89. Serious... all of the pro-tRump people I know in Arizona...

...get the vast majority of their "news" off of Fox or Facebook.

[ileus]

95. no one listens to AM...Why didn't you turn to FM sooner?

[blue neen]

2. Seriously, you're defending the Russians?

Now I've seen everything.

[DURHAM D]

4. Ditto

Obvious is obvious.

[davidn3600]

6. Nope. Just don't think the Russians mattered as much.

Rural America was pissed off for years.

Russia had nothing to do with that.

[blue neen]

14. Right. "Just don't think the Russians mattered as much".

They interfered in our election. They helped get their Stooge, Donald Trump, elected as President. They want to OWN our government, and Trump is leading the way for them.

No need for further discussion with you. You've made yourself perfectly clear.

[blue cat]

85. THIS

+1

[Kotya]

120. How did the Russians interfere with out election?

Because as far as I can tell, Russian "interference" consisted of releasing to Wikileaks hacked emails that show the DNC colluded to hobble Bernie Sanders' primary campaign, emails that DNC officials have never denied, by the way.

So are we supposed to be outraged at the Russians over this? Maybe instead we ought to be outraged at the DNC?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. She won the pop vote by 3,000, 000. She lost the EC by 80, 000

There were negative leaks about the Democratic party for several straight months. Eighty thousand votes out of one hundred and thirty million are not hard to move.

It was an act of war by the Russians to subvert our election , desecrate the sanctity of the ballot, and undermine our sovereignty. If the intelligence is unimpeachable and I was president I would recall our ambassador from Russia, expel their ambassador from here, and not restore diplomatic relations until they make a confession and apologize.

[LonePirate]

29. Except they are pissed off at the wrong people.

Many of them have been led for decades at the local, state and congressional level by Republicans. Yet somehow Obama and Clinton are wholly responsible for both the life choices they made and the horrific governance they face within their own state.

It's very tough to help people who are too stupid to help themselves.

[LenaBaby61]

82. It's very tough to help people who are too stupid to help themselves.

Damn dummies ....

[AgadorSparticus]

111. Right?!!???! Kinda telling about this poster

[JHan]

3. yeah we can an analyse a bunch of different things to explain voting trends..

it's not an either/or scenario..

Sigh.

binary thinking FML

[Paladin]

5. Well then, let rural America enjoy the tender mercies of a Trump regime.

And if you're resorting to that "85% of the nation's counties" crap while minimizing the effect of a Russian hack job, your agenda is showing, big-time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. And

The divide is economic, and it is massive. According to the Brookings analysis, the less-than-500 counties that Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64 percent of America's economic activity in 2015. The more-than-2,600 counties that Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country's economic activity last year.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trump-lost-most-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_economy-1125a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4c377064f7a8

[handmade34]

86. very telling!!

[JTFrog]

128. There was never a time it wasn't showing. nt

[thejoker123]

7. Lol, are you serious?

Which party has been screaming about the damage caused by union-busting, about raising the minimum wage, about a stronger social safety net, about more spending for job programs and infrastructure and education, about the need for stronger Wall Street regulations, about how WALLMART is decimating Main Street, about making the wealthy pay their fair share, about removing citizens United to get money out of politics?

Are white rural voters deaf, blind and stupid? I mean they just elected a billionaire from the party that openly opposes all of those things, and you want to blame democrats???

Puh-lease!

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

17. Most of them use the affordable care act, social security, and Medicaid

It's surreal seeing these people express fear that the party they voted for want to take them away. Just another example of republicans not realizing political parties aren't sports teams.

[guillaumeb]

33. I have not seen either party screaming about all of these things.

Democratic Presidents say nothing about union busting, say nothing about union workers for that matter. And they talk a bit about the minimum wage, but say nothing about replacing that talk with talk about a living wage.

And when Wall Street buys politicians from both parties, and when Democratic ex-Congress-people immediately go from Congress to a job as a lobbyist many people do buy into the argument that there is not much difference between the two parties.

So no, white rural voters are not stupid. Perhaps they feel that neither party has done much for working people.

[thejoker123]

48. I've yet to meet the person

Who says or thinks "both parties are the same" who is not an idiot. It's typically something stupid people who know nothing say to try and sound smart.

Democrats are not perfect, and indeed some have been corrupted by big money, but to compare them to republicans is just factually, and comically, absurd.

Rural voters are brainwashed by right wing media and often their religion, it's as simple as that. End of story. Lol, I mean they just elected a known pathological lying amoral greedy scumbag billionaire who has made his living ripping off the little guy and the taxpayer.....because they are tired of the little guy getting screwed by the rich.

Bwahahahahaha!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. It is profoundly disturbing ...

It is profoundly disturbing you think it's okay for foreign powers to interfere in our election system.

[pintobean]

107. Where did he say that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. The entire seminal post reads like an apologia for Russian manipulation of our electoral process.

[pintobean]

112. No, it doesn't

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Whatever you say, boss.

[LWolf]

10. It's not rural America's fault, either.

I live here in rural America.

I didn't see a single sign or bumper sticker for Clinton. I saw some, not many, for Trump. Trump took the region I live in (but not the state.) This region voted for Obama in '08; losing the rural vote is not simply about white racist misogynists. They will turn out for Democrats. SOME Democrats.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

20. They voted for Obama and '08 but

Realized over the next 8 years that having a black president just didn't "feel right", and they voted for the black guy already so there's nooo way that they can be racist for voting for the one backed by the KKK.

Also it was definitely misogyny. The subtexty kind, but yeah, the stereotype of the "shrill emotional woman" is still generally acceptable. Whereas we spent 40 years activelybreaking the stereotype of the "dumb violent black man"..

[LWolf]

31. It was

definitely misogyny for SOME. Not for all. It was definitely misogyny, along with other things, that fed the automatic conditioned hatred of Hillary Clinton among many; at least, among those who depend on conservative media talking heads to tell them how to think. And guess what? WE FUCKING KNEW ABOUT THIS ALL ALONG. WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A CONTINGENT OF "R" AND "L" AND "I" VOTERS WHO HATED HER SO MUCH THAT THEY'D VOTE FOR ANYBODY OTHER THAN SHE. AND WE FUCKING NOMINATED HER ANYWAY.

All rural people don't fit that group, though, which is my point. The broad brush, the desperate need to blame people, to judge them, to do anything but take responsibility for losing votes. Deciding what my region "felt" about Obama after '08? Pure fantasy. Since I teach all their white kids, I hear those students repeat what they get at home. And yes, there are some sexists and racists. But those are not the majority. The majority simply don't trust that the Democratic Party has their back when it comes to rural issues. And they're right, as all the anti-rural posts just in the last month here at DU prove.

I talked to a whole lot of local people during the GE campaign. Not at work, since I am committed to remaining totally neutral there. But out in the community...

I talked to Democrats. They were voting for Clinton because they didn't want Trump. I did not talk to a single Democrat that actually LIKED her for the position. They just didn't want Trump. I'm confident that there were Democrats here who actually liked her; I just didn't find them. They weren't out campaigning, that's for sure.

I talked to Rs and Is and Ls. There were a few enthusiastic Trump supporters. Most, though, were not. Most repeated the same thing a particularly rabid libertarian said to me: "I don't like Trump. I don't want Trump. I don't. But I can't, can't, can't, vote for her." So they didn't. Some voted Trump; some voted Johnson; some didn't vote at all.

Yet, we do elect women to local and state offices in this region.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

35. False equivalency in the media led to the Clinton Trump equation

whoever started that "lesser of 2 evils" thing needs to be investigated.

Republicans repeated the lie so much that democrats caught on. The same stuff would've happened to Sanders and you'd be saying the exact same things right now about him. This wasn't about Hillary, Hillary was just the democrat. Being a woman made her a soft target.

Ask any of those people. Nobody can pinpoint why they hated her. "She's dishonest", "pay-to-play"; maybe? Press them: "What makes her dishonest?" 9 out of 10 will say something about emails or Benghazi (she never lied about either). Press them on "pay-to-play" and they'll either draw blanks or talk about donations from foreign govs despite none of those things being abnormal and The Clinton Foundation doing great work, none of which seemed to influence HRC's stint as Secretary of State.

All of these are (R) propaganda talking points dredged up from Fox and co., adopted by the rest of the MSM.

Sanders would've lost in a landslide because of the socialist thing. Many democrats (all the ones who voted for HRC in the primary), still like center-left politics. All republicans hate socialism. Move on.

[LWolf]

59. I doubt very much

whether "the lesser of 2 evils" was "started" by a single person; and if so, he or she is long dead of old age.

It's been around longer than my lifetime, and I'm no spring chicken. The Democratic Party has been counting on the lesser evil vote my entire 40ish years of voting, and didn't choose to acknowledge the growing anger and revolt that was growing behind it. It was an election about change, about overturning the establishment. The DNC and establishment Democrats ignored that, to all of our peril.

Sanders would not have lost at all, as the same polling that predicted a close enough to be unsure of the outcome race for Clinton predicted a double digit win for him.

All of those Rs and Is and Ls I talked to? They didn't want Trump. They respected Sanders, even if they didn't agree with him on many issues, and would have voted for him. When they talked to me, that's what they said. They never mentioned the "socialism" label, which is incorrect anyway. Are you really trying to refight the primaries? If so, I guess I need to point out that I didn't bring Sanders up...you did.

Since you did, he would have beaten Trump like a rug. As a matter of fact, some of the folks I reached out to during the GE, trying to stem the flow of Trump voting locally, have since said to me, "I sure wish Sanders had been a choice." Again, I didn't bring it up. They did.

[Demit]

80. You don't know what oppo research Trump's campaign would've thrown at Sanders

Kurt Eichenwald, Newsweek's excellent investigative reporter, lays some of it out for you here:

Scroll down to #2. The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump

"Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook:

1) In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense.
2) He was on unemployment until his mid-30s; he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills; he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas where it could be dumped.
3) He violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal healthcare would’ve been used against him, since it was tried in Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. The Republicans had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, where President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”
4) The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.

The belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone attacked him is a delusion."

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[Demit]

127. No, the revelations Eichenwald detailed in his piece were new, not a part of the primary.

You present your counterfactual—that Sanders "would have beaten Trump like a rug"—as if it is some widely accepted truth. Sorry, it isn't. Despite your anecdata that the people you talked to "would have" voted for him.

Three million more Democrats voted for Clinton in the primary than voted for Sanders. It wasn't exactly a squeaker. If Sanders' campaign message wasn't strong enough to win over Democrats (who do NOT shrink in horror at the concept of paying taxes in return for services), I don't see how he was going to win over all those Rs and Is and Ls you talked to. Especially if, as you say, they didn't agree with him on many issues. I'm afraid what you are presenting is just a lot of wishful thinking.

[still_one]

21. These are the same folks who voted for reagan. That worked out real well for them also

but this one is gonna be a real winner for them.

[LWolf]

26. "These?"

Who are you talking about? I'm talking about the voters in my rural region. You seem to be painting a broad, and false brush. Which is exactly why the Democratic Party doesn't win more votes here. Thanks for that.

I don't know if these are "the same folks who voted for Reagan." I wasn't a rural dweller then. At that time, I knew all kinds of people, of Democrats, who voted for him. It wasn't just rural Independents, Republicans, and Libertarians who voted for Reagan. Too many urban and suburban fucking DEMOCRATS vote for him.

Those Reagan Democrats, not rural voters, bear the blame, at least from me, for the worst administration in my lifetime...until the one coming up.

[still_one]

36. The reagan Democrats I was referring to were from labor. My point was those traditionally

Democratic votes from labor went to Reagan, and they have been paying a price since for that.

I understand the point you are making also

[BainsBane]

76. Provide some election data to back up your claims

Because every election map in recent years has shown that rural areas are solidly Republican. They did not vote for Obama.
Cities are Democrat, rural and exurban areas vote Republican, and suburbs are swing districts. That is the mapping of modern day electoral politics. It's not a "broad brush." It's a demographic fact. If you have evidence to refute it, show an election map that demonstrates otherwise.

[BainsBane]

74. It's their responsibility

They voted GOP in this election as in every other. They voted for the government they want. I fail to see how their votes are the responsibility of anyone but themselves.

I find it interesting that they suddenly become heroes after affirming validating white supremacy and misogyny. They've always been right wing. The difference now is they voted for a fascist, but those who share their contempt for an "establishment" where a black man can be president and a woman a major candidate to succeed him have decided that a vote for a billionaire and his cabinet of billionaries is somehow anti-establishment.

Can you point to one election since the late 60s when the majority of rural areas voted anything other than GOP? The Democrats were indeed the rural party under slavery and the party of the rural South under Jim Crow, but not since.

[Jean-Jacques Roussea]

13. Rule: mention Sanders and your opinion immediately loses any cloat

You're the reason why dem turnout didn't swing this election. He lost the primary. Move on.
And the Clinton campaign paid plenty of attention to rural America. Rural America was too mindwiped to read a proposal or listen to a speech. The MSM was too busy covering tweets to cover policy. Their coal mining jobs aren't coming back. They need to learn new skills, as troublesome as it may be.

And that 85% of counties thing really bothers me. Yet another person who thinks imaginary geographical lines matter more than human beings .
Here's what our country actually looks like scaled by population:

[MFM008]

15. strange how shes winning by almost 3 million votes

.........................................

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Unless there isn't a neighbor in ten miles of you your vote doesn't count.

BTW, even by the flawed Electoral College she lost by 80,000 votes. It's not hard to believe a much larger number were swayed by the drip drip from Comey and Putin.

[alarimer]

60. All of which is accounted for by California.

States she would never have lost in the first place.

She got close to 9 million votes in California and Trump got just over 4. The difference was 4.3 million, more than enough to account for her surplus nationwide. If she had 3 million fewer there, she still would have won CA but lost the popular vote. Or tied.

This "Well she won the popular vote" thing is stupid. Our election doesn't work that way; we all know that. Some 80K votes would have changed those states. Some more time spent in those states, instead of, say, Arizona, might have helped. Who knows? Lots of things might have helped.

[stevenleser]

70. Sorry, more people voting for one candidate than another will never be stupid

That this is an inconvenient fact for you in the agenda you are pushing doesn't mean it's not an important fact.

[still_one]

19. Gee, I wonder how Russ Feingold or Zypher Teachout lost? I wonder how every Democrat

running for Senate in a swing state lost against the establishment, incumbent republican.

Of course I am sure none of this had nothing to do with the Supreme Court rolling back a key provision of the Voter Rights Act in 2013:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html

or the 14 states which had new voter restriction laws in place before the 2016 election:

http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

Nope, nothing to see here

and of course we don't want to leave out the media or the FBI, who were more than willing to contribute their fair share

11 days before the election when Comey sent the letter to the republicans
in Congress, and MSNBC was the first to report it as BREAKING NEWS that "the email investigation had been reopened", had nothing to do with it, even though it was a lie. MSNBC then paraded every right wing politician across their screen to propagate that lie, and within an hour, CNN and the other outlets followed with the same LIE.

Within a few days things started to calm down, and fox new's bret baier came out that "with his sources in the FBI, an indictment was pending on the Clinton Foundation". IT WAS A LIE. Google News, and other outlets insured that it got wide spread coverage. 48 hours later, bret baier came out and said there was no pending indictment, and he apologized.

Rachel Maddow, gave tremendous cudos to bret baier for apologizing, "after all we all make mistakes". Of course that didn't stop fox news or the trump campaign from continuing the LIE.

Nope, nothing to see here

Then there there was the self-identified progressive who refused to vote for Hillary.

In Michigan, Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Same thing in Wisconsin, and other critical states.

Nope, nothing to see here either.

Everyone who voted for Trump knew he was a racist and a sexist. I think that speaks for itself regarding those who voted for trump

The appointments trump is making to his team are not upsetting those who voted for him. It doesn't matter if Jeff Sessions is a racist and an anti-Semite
It doesn't matter that trump's choice of Steve Bannon as his top aide signals that white supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in trump's WH.
His HHS director want to dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA. I can go on, but I really don't have to. Those who voted for trump speak for themselves.

As for those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, and could have made a difference, ____ ____

[Generator]

65. Agree with all your points

Also never want to hear "but bernie would have won" Were Bernie's life and emails an open book? I wish he would have run but he would have lost too. We are against tides of history, voter suppression and the freaking government of Putin. There is no simple answer. The premise of the op is false. Democrats tried to be Republicons and that didn't work. Those people ONLY vote Republicon. We need OUR votes counted.

[LenaBaby61]

83. Gee, I wonder how Russ Feingold or Zypher Teachout lost? I wonder how every Democrat.

running for Senate in a swing state lost against the establishment, incumbent republican.

Of course I am sure none of this had nothing to do with the Supreme Court rolling back a key provision of the Voter Rights Act in 2013:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html

or the 14 states which had new voter restriction laws in place before the 2016 election:

http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

Nope, nothing to see here

and of course we don't want to leave out the media or the FBI, who were more than willing to contribute their fair share

11 days before the election when Comey sent the letter to the republicans
in Congress, and MSNBC was the first to report it as BREAKING NEWS that "the email investigation had been reopened", had nothing to do with it, even though it was a lie. MSNBC then paraded every right wing politician across their screen to propagate that lie, and within an hour, CNN and the other outlets followed with the same LIE.

Within a few days things started to calm down, and fox new's bret baier came out that "with his sources in the FBI, an indictment was pending on the Clinton Foundation". IT WAS A LIE. Google News, and other outlets insured that it got wide spread coverage. 48 hours later, bret baier came out and said there was no pending indictment, and he apologized.

Rachel Maddow, gave tremendous cudos to bret baier for apologizing, "after all we all make mistakes". Of course that didn't stop fox news or the trump campaign from continuing the LIE.

Nope, nothing to see here

Then there there was the self-identified progressive who refused to vote for Hillary.

In Michigan, Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Same thing in Wisconsin, and other critical states.

Nope, nothing to see here either.

Everyone who voted for Trump knew he was a racist and a sexist. I think that speaks for itself regarding those who voted for trump

The appointments trump is making to his team are not upsetting those who voted for him. It doesn't matter if Jeff Sessions is a racist and an anti-Semite
It doesn't matter that trump's choice of Steve Bannon as his top aide signals that white supremacists will be represented at the highest levels in trump's WH.
His HHS director want to dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA. I can go on, but I really don't have to. Those who voted for trump speak for themselves.

As for those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, and could have made a difference, ____ ____

[mrs_p]

27. I'm sick of this

Won't read beyond, "and claim to understand America." I've lived in both. I fucking am as much "America" in the city as much as I am in the country.

Screw that shit that the country is more America than the city. Just fuck that.

[still_one]

37. That was the whole point of Dean's 50 state strategy, and why it was so successful

[mrs_p]

45. Totally agree

We are all American. Despite our differences. Not one of us is more than the other.

Loved Dean for that. I lived in the country in 2008 when Obama won.

[PotatoChip]

49. They are ignorant & clearly proud of it, or there would not be so many of these threads.

Nonetheless, I read most of them. Mostly for the lulz.

[mrs_p]

66. Smart. I'll try to be more like you.

Just gets under my skin at times.

[Fast Walker 52]

100. yes, seriously-- and it pisses me off that people in the country have more voting power and

determine how WE non-rural folks live. Fucked up.

[yardwork]

30. Lecturing people again? How progressive of you.

[Scruffy1]

32. Neither party has a has a solution to the marginalized population.

Here in Minnesota some rural counties that were carried by Obama went to Trump. The truth is that the rural areas are losing out in the technological change that has swept America. As they watch their towns and jobs dry up they become easy prey for the demagogue. The truth is that the jobs aren't coming back even if you cut down on imports because of automation and the trend to more centralized operations. I had a brother who lived in a small county seat town in Iowa. The largest employer was a large grocery chain which had its headquarters there. They finally moved to a bigger city because they needed the technical infrastructure and also I think the executives would rather live in a larger city. I've seen this repeated over the entire Midwest. I've spent a lot of time in West Virginia, also. The truth is without mining most of the state had no reason to be there. Much of it is not suitable for farming, even on a subsistence level. That leaves logging as a livelihood. Once again the jobs aren't coming back. Sadly, many of the residents simply have no skills that would support them in a urban area and no money to relocate anyway. The same with our post industrial cities like Flint.
Once they find that T-rump can't help them either they will turn on him. There are no easy answers. They way it is now a few of the smarter ones go off to college and never come back and the rest of the working class simply lives a meager existence with the few that own almost everything left being in complete control. Sadly, it's just the inner city experience applied to rural areas. To go pandering with promises you can't keep is just asking for disaster as the R's are about to find out.

[renate]

63. I agree with everything you said except one thing, although I hope I'm wrong

I don't think they'll turn on Trump or on any Republican who is in favor with right-wing radio, because that is where they get their "information" and opinions from. A failure to keep promises will be explained away by blaming the minority party. Logic is not the strong suit of Fox viewers or Limbaugh listeners.

It's so sad, because these people's lives are being blown around by winds over which they have no control, not even the power of the vote because they continually and naively are persuaded to vote against their own economic interests. I do feel for them. When they hear "Make America Great Again" they have the America of their parents and grandparents in mind, an America where you know everybody in your small town, and I can understand their longing for those days again, but that version of America simply is not coming back.

[brush]

104. Excellent post

[braddy]

34. Something worth noting, is that while she leads by 2.8 mill, she won California by almost 4.3 mill.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. California is much more important to the United States than the United States is to California.

[davidn3600]

41. OK but what works in California doesn't necessarily wok in Michigan or Florida or Ohio

Don't you understand that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. Understand what ?

That I should countenance Russian meddling in our elections?

[davidn3600]

47. Understand that the United States is not a slave to the states of California and New York

When Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all agree....those states will override California and New York's popular votes.

California and New York = 84 electoral votes.
FL, MI, WI, PA, OH = 93 electoral votes.

So it doesn't matter how many millions more popular votes CA and NY give Hillary. The other states can override......which is exactly what happened.

If it wasn't for the EC, Hillary would have won anyway regardless what the Russians were doing. So maybe the people you should be blaming are James Madison and George Washington.

But as long as we have this system in place....those other states matter. We are NOT slaves to California.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Slavery, my god...

But as long as we have this system in place....those other states matter. We are NOT slaves to California.

Did I say you were a "slave" to California.

80, 000 votes out of 130,000,000 votes is not a lot of votes to move, not with a KGB styled disinformation campaign. Why do you countenance it?

BTW, if you read the Federalist Papers the Electoral College was supposed to be a break to prevent a demagogue from becoming president:

Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

...


Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

Do you or do you not believe that the Electoral College was designed to prevent a demagogue like Donald Trump from ascending to the presidency and if you do would you admit it has failed if it doesn't prevent him from being elected president?

[davidn3600]

39. My point exactly

And much of that 4.3 million is from L.A. and San Francisco.

This party is becoming increasingly consolidated to only certain cities. You take out L.A. and NYC and Donald Trump wins the popular vote.

There is no outreach. Either agree with the urban politics or else you are a racist, misogynist, deplorable, Russian-supporter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Why is a vote from a Kansan worth more than a vote from a Californian?

California is the sixth largest economy in the world and would thrive as a separate nation. Left to its own devices Kansas would become like Estonia.

[treestar]

53. It's ridiculous that they defend this concept

and people would be voting nationally, so it would not mean the more populous states had more control, the voting would not be by state! I come from a state where my vote counts for more (a 3 EV state) and I agree completely our votes here should not be worth more than a Californian's or New Yorker's.

[KamaAina]

40. She did not call rural Americans "deplorable".

She called racists, misogynists, homophobes and the like deplorable, no matter where they live.

[handmade34]

87. thank you for that!

[hollowdweller]

46. Clinton made numerous mistakes

She also seemingly had the entire republican party working on character assassination of her, the FBI director seemingly putting his finger on the scale against her, and the Russians Helping.

If she had focused more on the economy she might have sheared off enough to win.

If Russia had not tried to undemine the democratic party and the campaign she might have had enough to win.

If Comey at the last minute had not tried to prolong suspicion by making the supposedly duplicate emails and injecting Weiner into the mix she might have won.

She just had too many things against her. It was so close any one of them could have made a difference.

However if she did not have the private email server. If she had not deleted emails. If she had gone to work for Habitat for Humanity building houses after State rather than making speeches to Wall Street I think she could have beat him. To me those were the 3 things that undermined her credibility in attacking Trumps claim he was for the working man.

[Kingofalldems]

50. Nice pivot from GOP treason. Won't work though.

[treestar]

52. The margins were quite thin in the applicable states

and those states had just four years ago gone to Obama. The Russians may not be entirely to blame, but doesn't it bother you at all that they even did anything at all?

[Cha]

68. Well, too bad.. Russia hacked the DNC.. and not only that they

spread the hate that Hillary was unlikable.

So Russia messed with our Democracy and that makes them the enemy.

[uponit7771]

69. i do

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I would address YOUR attack on Latinos in kind but I don't want MY post hidden.

"... She spent too much time pandering to Latino voters in Arizona ..."

-davidn3600

Core principles



Harsh, divisive, partisan attacks against Democrats or progressive values (from the right or the left) are not welcome here.

...


No divisive group attacks
Do not smear, insult, vilify, bait, maliciously caricature, or give disrespectful nicknames to any groups of people that are part of the Democratic coalition, or that hold viewpoints commonly held by Democrats, or that support particular Democratic public figures.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Cha]

72. Hillary ran a Great Campaign and she would of won the Electoral

College if the Russians hadn't hacked the DNC and comey hadn't ratfucked with his baseless email accusation.. and all the m$m negative press.

BS lost by 3 3/4 Million Votes.. not even close.

[BainsBane]

77. "Pandering to Latinos"

when she should have been focusing on the first class white voters whose concerns matter, as opposed to the voters you think irrelevant. Of course she was a bad candidate. She didn't have the required anatomy. She is smart, offered substantive policy positions, and didn't lie to voters about her plans. She respected the intelligence of voters. Obviously that was a mistake. She should have realized she was dealing with a country that didn't care about policy. What motivates them is their hatred of the other--whether a black president, women, or anger that politicians have the nerve to address Latino voters. What the Democratic Party needs is a White Supremacist and sexual predator like Donald Trump to make the voters who hate everyone else feel better. If only we could recover the Democratic values of Jim Crow, then we could win over the voters that truly matter.

I noticed that during the primaries with the way they were treating Bernie and his supporters. We were called racists. We were called sexists. The people in the establishment DNC don't want to lose control of the party. They don't want to give more power over the platform to rural America because that will run against the philosophy of identity politics.

Rural areas are GOP and have been for decades. And no, the "establishment" of "identity politics" doesn't want to turn their party over to Republicans or to those who dismiss the concerns and lives of anyone besides white men as "identity politics." The Democrats will never again be the white men first party. That is what the GOP is for. There is a clear choice. You make no secret about where you stand, which is of course your right. What you don't have a right to do is push our or silence the majority of Democrats voters--who are in fact women and people of color--so that white men uncomfortable with that demographic reality can reassert dominion. The entire point of the GOP is to cater to the kind of anger you articulate. The Democratic Party belongs to its voters, not to Republican voters.

[hfojvt]

54. that is not true at all

Last edited Sat Dec 10, 2016, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

"go to rural Pennsylvania or Ohio or Michigan, and its just the opposite. You can't find any Hillary voters."

Hillary got over 20% in pretty much every county in Pennsylvania. So Hillary voters in rural America are fairly common. Unless you go to Haakon County South Dakota where only 7% of the voters voted for Clinton. Of course, with only about one person per square mile of its 1,827 square miles (50% bigger than the state of Rhode Island) you are kinda hard pressed to find ANY people there.

Also, most of Trump's tiny victory margin does not come from places like Potter County (7,784 votes) or Forest County (2.420 votes).

No, it comes from places like Erie County (125,000 votes, Trump won 48-46-3) Mercer County (52,790 votes, 60% of them for Trump) Westmoreland County (183,000 votes, Trump over 60%) Cumberland County (123,486 votes, 56% for Trump) Lancaster County (244,832, 56% for Trump) and so on. Those places are NOT rural, neither is Lancaster (59,000 people) a "small" town.

Also, in 2008, Obama's best year, he lost 49 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. He only won 13 of those 67 counties in 2012 and that was still enough to win the state and the White House. So figuring percent of counties won is a pointless rightwing exercise as they like to pretend that all counties are equal and to lose Haakon County while winning Minnehaha should count as a tie. 1-1.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Nice work. Thank you. Land mass does not equal people. See Alaska.

[marylandblue]

55. The vulnerabilities were there to exploit

Russia interfered in our election, and conservative radio ate their brains, but why were rust belt voters so vulnerable to manipulation? They were already dissatisfied and scared, which makes people easier to manipulate. Until democrats offer them a better way, they will be vulnerable to demagogues on the right.

[Freelancer]

56. Rural people would vote for Darth Vader if his opponent supported gun control.

As soon as Democratic leaders wrap their heads around that one thing, we can start to compete in rural areas again.

For a long time, a rural Democrat could run while telling voters that he/she didn't agree with gun control. It was possible to shift emphasis from that issue to the MANY areas where Democratic policies are in the self interest of working class people. No more. The sustained action of Republicans and the gun lobby has hung gun control around the necks of all Democrats, urban and rural alike, and it seems that most urban Democrats are fine with it. Democrats running in major cities and college towns want to be the gun control party. It's a winning theme in their districts. Then they scratch their heads after a loss like this (not that there has EVER been a loss like this) and talk about what's wrong with rural America. In fact, what's wrong is their own inability to see how pronounced, huge, and unreconcilable this one thing is. Approach any aspect of gun control as something negotiable -- as something that can be mollified so as to be palatable to rural voters -- and you've already lost in "fly-over country."

There are bound to be isolated exceptions, but if you look back at when we started to lose, it's when people started to fear intrusion into their lives in a big way. Gun control became an emblem of that intrusion, and a point of coalescence. Paranoia has been stoked daily by talk radio and right wing rhetoric, to the point where gun control IS a third rail in much of this country. Until we can say to rural America "Ah! Okay. We get it. You're scared. This is us backing away from that one cherished thing of yours. No touchy -- ever, ever," there won't be many major victories for Democrats nationally -- only squeakers.

[Lady_Chat]

73. Agree. But think it started before gun control, with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

After that passed, Democrats really lost the support of red states, especially in the south. I have relatives down south, and I avoid visiting there as much as I can. Tired of the confederate flags, and hearing them complaining about getting government out of their lives and paying taxes. What taxes? A lot of Red States don't even pay into the federal government, but they get plenty of money back from the government, while in Blue states, like NY and California, we pay a great deal into the federal government and get very little back. You bring that up and they look at you like they don't have a clue that's going on. Ever since Obama was elected, they have wanted to "take their country back". You have a confederate flag lover like Dylan Roof who killed 9 black church goers, and the cops take him in, and treat him to Burger King while he laughs at what he did, and about wanting to start a race war. No police brutality for that guy.

I'm tired of being called a "baby killer", while these people don't give a good God damn about children that are already living, whether they are homeless, uninsured, or hungry...Paul Ryan thinks giving children free lunches gives them empty souls. But you know....they are the party that's pro-life. So what if women are raped, or had to endure incest, you get pregnant and all you are to them, is a walking incubator. And should you go through a life threatening pregnancy, your life means nothing to them. Who will raise that child should you die, is of no concern to them, but they will complain if their tax dollars are used to do it.

You will never convince them about their guns, not being taken away...never. It's useless to even try. They live in fear of everything and everybody, but especially, "the terrorists". I live among people who were in NY on 9/11, that have less fear of terrorists and more guts, than what I've seen from these people, yet, they are perfectly comfortable with their republican party who thinks it's fine to sell guns to people who are on terrorists list, no fly lists, felons, spousal abusers and the mental ill. Cause you know the slaughter of children and teachers at Sandy Hook was all a "big act". It's all about their rights. They'll quote the 2nd Amendment, but just like the NRA, they will leave out the " "well regulated" part.

As far as unemployment, rural areas have been in decline way before NAFTA, one of my husband's relatives said he didn't even know he lived in a poverty region until LBJ visited Appalachia in the 60's. When he was old enough he got out and never looked back. And don't even suggest they move closer to cities where there are more opportunities for employment, because they "like the country". And let's face it, most jobs lost, were lost to tech, so people need to be retrained, but republicans have no intention of making going back to school for retraining affordable. Doesn't matter anyway, because they think unemployment has soared under Obama, and the stock market is also in decline. It's all bad, everything is bad since Obama was elected..they believe that.

I don't know where they get their news from...24/7 Fox News? Breibart? The man they voted for president, is more worried about what's said about him on Saturday Night Live, than The Klu Klux Klan holding a victory parade in his honor last week in N. Carolina. Or all the reported attacks by Trump supporters, since the election, on minorities. Hillary is chastised for using the word deplorable, but Trump insulting the disabled, Mexicans, blacks, Muslims, women, and a POW, is just fine.

So what appeals to them?, Guns, religion...as long as it's their God you believe in, no protections for women, no gays or gay marriage or transsexuals, and going after everyone they don't like and throwing them out of "their" country, and the promise of jobs, that his billionaire CEO's swamp cabinet, have no interest in creating for them. Because when you really get down to it, that's what won it for Trump.

Sorry about the rant, but I'm just disgusted by this election.

[Freelancer]

75. What rant? You make great points. In fact, I may be in love with you.

Seriously, that was beautifully written and extremely cogent.

Thanks!

[TheFrenchRazor]

61. DON'T CARE, we still have more votes than they do. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. The argument that rural voters are not worth more than urban voters isn't persuasive.

[BainsBane]

78. Yes, starting in 1964

They were never going to win rural areas. They haven't in decades. The entire notion that another candidate besides Clinton would have done so is absurd. Obama didn't win them. Democrats simply do not.

[PotatoChip]

93. Political response to the Civil Rights Act was not an urban v rural thing.

(Assuming that is what you are referring to)...



1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide. Note that Texas went to Johnson as he was its favorite son.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[BainsBane]

97. That map doesn't show an urban rural breakdown

It shows states.

[PotatoChip]

99. Some states are predominately rural, while others are predominately urban/suburban.

How much more of a breakdown do you need?

[BainsBane]

98. This talks about an urban rural divide since the 80s

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/

It would be interesting to see how it breaks down in early decades, but the fact is Clinton nor any Democrat was ever going to win the rural vote.

[PotatoChip]

102. Where do you get this stuff?

My rural state of Maine has not voted for an R for POTUS since 1988. Prior to 1964 however, we generally voted R.

As for the article, I'll read later. Thanks for the link.

[BainsBane]

109. The link is quite clear

The Atlantic.

This is a website from a political scientist who developed a concept called the big sort. The period of transition of the Dems to an urban party seems to have been between 1976 and 2000. http://www.thebigsort.com/maps.php

Prior to Civil Rights Act, the entire South, rural and urban, was solidly Democratic. That's when the party included conservatives. That's part of the reason claims about a Dem drift to the right since then don't hold water.

They key point is that there is no way Clinton was ever going to win the majority of the rural vote. Obama didn't. Why should she?

[stonecutter357]

81. Putin's Puppet will not be rural America Saviour.

[Freddie]

88. Abortion and guns

For the people who vote solely on either/both of these issues, they will vote for Satan himself against an opponent who is pro-choice or even slightly in favor of some gun regulations. No nuances allowed. That's maybe 45% of voters right there and you throw in Trump's BS about "bringing back jobs" and of course the emails, and we're done - in those regions where votes somehow count for more. Reminds me of a book I read in HS - "some animals are more equal than others."

[JHan]

90. Dude, Hillary's strategy could have been better but she didn't call all of them deplorable..

Goddamn, are we in world where I cannot call someone who is acting deplorable , deplorable? Xenophobia isn't deplorable ??

Did she not say in her statement that there are also Trump supporters who want change and feel cheated out of the economy????

[BainsBane]

91. Whereas Mexicans are rapists

And grab em by the pussy--no problem.

[stevenleser]

116. OPs posts going back a while don't seem to be much interested in equality or calling out bigotry.

I'm not saying OP is a racist, but they certainly seem almost completely indifferent to many concerns of African Americans, Latinos and LGBT.

I'm not surprised at all to see this new OP where he excoriates Hillary for calling a segment of Trump supporters deplorable for their bigotry and other disgusting behavior while completely glossing over Trump's blanket racism towards Mexicans and other Latinos as Bainsbane pointed out in the other reply to you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. What a misleading statistic !!!!

It's not the Russian's fault Hillary lost 85% of the nation's counties.

-david3600

What a misleading statistic !!!!

Loving County is a county in the U.S. state of Texas. As of the 2010 census, the population was 82


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_County,_Texas


10.17 million people were living in Los Angeles County, California.


https://www.statista.com/statistics/241702/largest-counties-in-the-us/

I will leave it to the denizens of our online community to infer why you would post a misleading characteristic

[ileus]

94. None of those people count, they're not part of real America.

I read it in another thread around here that folks in those rural counties aren't normal Americans and need to be ignored.

[Recursion]

96. So why are rural Americans so disconnected from ordinary Americans?

What can the 20% of Americans who live in rural areas do to pop that bubble they live in?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. 19%.

[PotatoChip]

103. Actually we aren't "disconnected".

We travel just like everyone else in this country.

In fact, I'd venture to guess that many of us travel more, because most have grown children living in other states where jobs are better paying and more plentiful. Case in point, my own daughter who lives and works in NYC.

[DoctorMyEyes]

105. Where do you think the people in the cities came from?

Those overpopulated blue coastal cities? Where do you even imagine they all came from? They weren't all born there. And they're not all foreign immigrants seeking a better life. Many, many, many are immigrants from what you're calling "rural America" and they certainly, absolutely DO understand the "America" they fled! Those "huddled masses yearning to be free"? Millions of them came from rural PA, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa. People of color who came from the south...

Stop telling them they need to reach out and understand/accomodate the very ignorant close minded people and conditions who made their lives unbearable in the first place.

[Greybnk48]

106. I've found a ton of Hillary supporters, everywhere.

And to your point, there was plenty of anger to go around after eight years of stonewalling by the Republicans in Congress.

If you were looking for overt support of Hillary, forget it. No one I knew put out yard signs or bumper stickers because the Trump supporters in our area were mostly the fringy nuts who would likely key your car or egg your house, if they didn't shoot you.

Face the FACTS. This election was rigged, by Republicans and their Comrades in Russia. Wisconsin counties, the dirty ones, won't even ALLOW hand counts. Someone else has posted what a Bush v Gore-esque shit show the Michigan recount was.

May I add: FUCK rural America and the farmers, or what's left of their family farms after corporate America worked them over. And FUCK rural, gun nut, skinhead, right wing America in general if they're to blame. I'm sick of my family being victimized by the deeply ignorant and the religiously insane. Fuck them from the bottom of my heart.

[libtodeath]

108. How many of these fucking idiots think the earth is 6000 years old?

That is who we should be reaching out to?

Fuck that,they would still be ok with slavery if it meant they could profit.

FUCK THAT!

[Bettie]

114. Rural America is pretty easy to understand

go to any evangelical church on a Sunday morning.

Hate is the undertone of the sermon. The overtones are "you are the only righteous people out there".

Then, they go to blame all problems on feminism, liberalism, and people who aren't "like us".

I live in rural America and many of the people here are filled with hate for the "other".

This gets fueled farther by the "flyover state" mentality and the cries of "small mostly white states don't matter", though that mostly keeps the liberals at home.

But, in the end, fundamentalist religion is the biggest problem and one that is not easily overcome. In fact, it may not be able to be overcome, because religious people are raised from birth to do as they are told without question.

[PotatoChip]

115. Not all rural areas are the same.

My state is the 3rd least religious state in America.

[Bettie]

119. Well, around here (Iowa)

they all prattle on and on about what "god" wants...which is for them to hate everyone who isn't white, ultra-religious (won't ever call anyone who voted for that creature "christian" again), and of their same hateful religious stripe.

I grew up around these people. I'm related to a lot of them in Wisconsin.

I used to think they were basically good people.

I no longer believe that.

[PotatoChip]

122. Interesting.

John Lennon sums up my personal philosophy of people (no matter where they live) when he says in one of his songs that "there is good and bad in everyone". Though it may sound simplistic, I think it's basically true overall. Even for religious people... no matter how annoying and hypocritical they often tend to be.

[Bettie]

123. Oh, I'm sure there is still some good in there

but they chose hate. They chose a man who embodies everything they claim to be against and they still say he's a "good christian man".

I just can't accept that. They've chosen to move the balance point far beyond where I can ever trust any of them again. I'll be nice at family gatherings and polite as I was raised to be, but I will never trust a single one of them again.

I'll also not feel a bit sorry for them when their chosen savior screws them over.

[PotatoChip]

124. The Trumpster is already going back on his promises.

Just look at all the swamp-monsters he's chosen thus far.

I don't think that most of them were motivated by hate. He just told them what they wanted to hear, and they were naive and desperate enough to overlook his hateful rhetoric for what they believed he was going to do for them.

If he is as bad as I suspect he will be, they will soon learn that they had been conned. I actually feel kind of sorry for them. Not all of them of course, but the ones who voted for him in hope of making their lives better economically.

[Horse with no Name]

117. Then WHY did russia have to intervene?

Just asking...

[TrekLuver]

118. The Russians sure as hell didn't help...only one side getting hacked and released and we should say

that that played zero into our loss? The constant drip of the wikileaks ....you think that played NO PART?????? You think that played no part in these states that we lost by a razor thin margin? ?

[Starry Messenger]

121. LOL--most of America lives in cities.

I refuse to think of a frightened minority of white voters as representative of "real America."

[pansypoo53219]

126. ditto heads + fun gnewsland. limited teevee & radio.