Recent Posts

2016 election rural voters

Intriguing recent polling of rural voters

by Dan Burns on July 10, 2017 · 2 comments

cornActually, urban and suburban voters, as well, but as with the analysis in the quoted article I’m primarily interested in the rural thing, in the context of past and future elections.
First, though, a couple of remarks from me. I admit that I’m still pissed about the 2016 polling. Which is for the most part unfair of me, and not just because I’m not exactly perfect in all that I do, either. I clearly recall that the Sunday before the election, the recent polls listing on had a lot of them with Hillary winning the national vote by 1-3%. I was disdainful, as I thought it would be more like 5%, but they were right. It was just in some of the close states that there was really a significant problem, and they are trying to figure that out.
Second, issue polling does have fudge factors that must be kept in mind. Small differences in wording can lead to big swings in results. But when the numbers seem consistent and sensible, it’s OK to run with them.

Keep in mind that recent studies have shown that voters with that set of beliefs on race, religion, and culture were instrumental in getting Donald Trump elected in 2016. They’re by no means a majority of all of his supporters, but these largely rural and poorly-educated voters were disproportionately among the ranks of the Obama-to-Trump flippers who made the difference in flipping key Midwestern states that tipped the Electoral College in his direction.
The point in citing all of this polling data, however, isn’t merely to say “Ha ha, look at all these dumb rubes, glad we’re rid of them,” or to warn against using economic arguments to try and win back white working-class voters in Midwestern states who flipped from Obama to Trump but may be willing to vote Democratic again. In fact, one possible angle would be to look at the similar rates of economic discontent among all regions of the country to make a sort of “we’re all in this together, against a rigged economy” sort of argument. (Although, in terms of get-out-the-vote activity, I would still argue that a higher-percentage play is to focus on getting more urban and suburban residents voting who aren’t even registered or who turn out only irregularly, especially black and Latino urban voters; that’s a much larger, and growing, pool of untapped votes, rather than the shrinking pool of mercurial swing voters.)
(Daily Kos)

The right wing had a good election in Minnesota in 2016 because rural DFLers skipped this one and rural swing voters went for Trump. That’s bad.
Comments below fold.