Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
As you know, once upon a time I ran some political campaigns, and I always loved places that vote 90% my way, because they give great margins so a really small town can have a big impact, and I also loved places that voted 90% the other way in the past, because I have some idea how to knock it down to 80% and that swing can make a big difference. But there are very, very few places that are in that 90% category. Most of the country is somewhere between 60/40 and 50/50. There aren't as many bubbles as you think (either red ones or blue ones), but the bubbles that are least permeable are some of the rural white ones.
|
Maslow's hierachy applied differently to rural whites than it does now. In years past, they'd the luxury of taking a chance. If Trump teaches us anything, it's that they're now desperate.
It's hard to determine Trump's impact on rural economies as the data is sketchy. We hear about farmers getting killed because of tariffs, but we don't know how many are small farmers and how many are medium to big ag. (And I wouldn't trust anyone offering me a breakout, as we're too close in time for reliable data to be available.)
But let's assume Trump has had between no impact and a negative impact on rural white communities. If that's the case, these communities have just wasted another four years on a bet that didn't pan out. They could barely afford that bet. They won't make another. I suspect that, backed against the wall even further, they'll default to the lizard brain logic, "Biden's a Democrat. I've got to be able to get more from him than Trump." I don't think they have a choice but to vote for whoever they think will give them more.
So I suspect they're uniquely permeable this time around.
