Why do Democrats always have to pander to rural America?

[Hawaii Hiker]

It looks like Mark Warner will win the Virginia senate seat in November & that is a good thing, but I would just love to see a Republican reach out to urban America, that'll be the day...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/talking-to-jesusland/

[Bake]

1. Because voters live there?

Seems reasonable to me.

Bake

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. 'pander' and 'listen to' are always going to be subjective judgements

but part of it is the electoral college, and the 2 senators per state rule. It gives political power to land (more precisely, to boundaries drawn a century or more ago) rather than people.

[aikoaiko]

3. because we aim to serve all of Americans,

[bowens43]

4. Obama is running for the office of President of the Untied States

not the President of Urban Democrats, Progressives and Liberals

[Mz Pip]

5. I doubt any of us

would like to see those rural areas that have Democratic congresscritters become represented by Republican congresscritters.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. I agree.

We could all also benefit from seeing some rural areas with Republican Congresspeople change to Democratic Congress people.

It's all about the big picture.

[Warpy]

7. We have a silly paradigm in this country

that says that people in the country and small towns are thrifty, clean, brave and reverent and that those who live in the cities (most of us now) have been thoroughly corrupted by sin. Appealing to the small town and rural country that no longer exists means appealing to what people pretend to be: down to earth and homey, no matter that they're living up to their earlobes in debt in a walled suburb of a huge, dirty city.

We're seeing that shift now, as people can no longer pretend they're anything but what they've always been, worker bees in a system that has robbed them for years.

I don't know if the shift will happen in time for the election. I do know that it's starting to happen.

[Breeze54]

8. They talk to both, afaics.

:shrug: