Kentuckians are welfare queens and they're in denial about it

[Sol]

Sneering is not the right attitude to adopt, for sure.

That said, stupidity is stupidity and there's not way of calling it differently (whether it is displayed by working, middle or upper-class people, there is little difference). I'd say sadness and despair are more appropriated reactions than contempt.

It isn't stupidity. They have no reason to vote for the Democrats if they aren't substantially economically leftist and populist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sneering is not the right attitude to adopt, for sure.

That said, stupidity is stupidity and there's not way of calling it differently (whether it is displayed by working, middle or upper-class people, there is little difference). I'd say sadness and despair are more appropriated reactions than contempt.

It isn't stupidity. They have no reason to vote for the Democrats if they aren't substantially economically leftist and populist.

Wouldn't not losing the little safety net that saves them from complete misery be a sufficient reason?

[Sol]

Sneering is not the right attitude to adopt, for sure.

That said, stupidity is stupidity and there's not way of calling it differently (whether it is displayed by working, middle or upper-class people, there is little difference). I'd say sadness and despair are more appropriated reactions than contempt.

It isn't stupidity. They have no reason to vote for the Democrats if they aren't substantially economically leftist and populist.

Wouldn't not losing the little safety net that saves them from complete misery be a sufficient reason?

Not if the Republicans are sufficiently attractive on other issues.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sneering is not the right attitude to adopt, for sure.

That said, stupidity is stupidity and there's not way of calling it differently (whether it is displayed by working, middle or upper-class people, there is little difference). I'd say sadness and despair are more appropriated reactions than contempt.

It isn't stupidity. They have no reason to vote for the Democrats if they aren't substantially economically leftist and populist.

Once again, what if Obama had got single-payer passed? Do you think these people would support that?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sneering is not the right attitude to adopt, for sure.

That said, stupidity is stupidity and there's not way of calling it differently (whether it is displayed by working, middle or upper-class people, there is little difference). I'd say sadness and despair are more appropriated reactions than contempt.

It isn't stupidity. They have no reason to vote for the Democrats if they aren't substantially economically leftist and populist.

Wouldn't not losing the little safety net that saves them from complete misery be a sufficient reason?

Not if the Republicans are sufficiently attractive on other issues.

Did you read the OP? Other issues aren't the problem here. These voters have embraced talking points directly aimed against themselves. They are the ones benefitting from food stamps, and also the ones complaining about  "handouts". They survive thanks to Medicaid, but they want "government out of their lives". This is more than simple priorities dissonance. It's the utter inability to logically connect a discourse with the obvious reality that arises from it. If this is not stupidity, then I have no idea what stupidity is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Did you read the OP?

Have you read it critically?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Did you read the OP?

Have you read it critically?

I don't know. Since it is mainly quoted words from other people, I am not sure what critical reading would consist in (yes, I've considered representativeness issues, but I still think these words do reflect the views of a sizable share of this category... I would be very rejoiced to be proven wrong).

[Franzl]

It might be a good idea to consider that people don't (normally) choose to be uneducated.

If we assume that voting for Republicans is irrational if you're poor (which it generally is, of course), we should ask why the people in question are not aware of this.

And if you think about the media in America, the totally screwed up secondary education system, etc....I don't think one claim that it's just a matter of dumbs being dumb.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It might be a good idea to consider that people don't (normally) choose to be uneducated.

If we assume that voting for Republicans is irrational if you're poor (which it generally is, of course), we should ask why the people in question are not aware of this.

And if you think about the media in America, the totally screwed up secondary education system, etc....I don't think one claim that it's just a matter of dumbs being dumb.

Never claimed the opposite. As I said, my only sentiment is sadness, not contempt. I don't want to be judgmental in any way. All things being equal, I always consider that myself morally inferior to anyone who is less privileged than I am.

But at the same time, I can't stand efforts to sugar-coat or rationalize views that are, indeed, objectively stupid. I don't think these two attitudes should be incompatible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And let me reiterate: most people, rich and poor alike, hold extremely stupid political views. It is just that in this particular case, these stupid views happen to have particularly tragic consequences to a country's politics and to the material standing of the very people who hold them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't know. Since it is mainly quoted words from other people, I am not sure what critical reading would consist in (yes, I've considered representativeness issues, but I still think these words do reflect the views of a sizable share of this category... I would be very rejoiced to be proven wrong).

I meant in the fairly straightforward sense of the article as a whole and what it is attempting to argue.

For instance, the stereotypically unsympathetic man* being quoted as being implicitly representative of all hicks (because that is so what the article is driving at: you only need to see this thread to see that) actually lives in Louisville. I'm afraid that I have to put it in bold because hardly anyone seems to have noticed when I pointed it out earlier. But, anyway, isn't that interesting?

_{*Leaving aside at least half of what makes him generically unsympathetic, the revulsion that is often triggered by the 'ungrateful' poor (of whatever background or politics) is an interesting phenomenon. Revulsion at the supposedly 'undeserving' poor is a much discussed tendency, but this isn't really. I suspect - he says at least 58% trollishly - that part of the issue may just be that academics are rarely prone to the latter form of revulsion, but this is not so of the former. One does not like to investigate too closely ones own prejudices. Might be worthy of a thread at some point.}

[Antonio the Sixth]

I admit I haven't read the article, mainly because I feared getting even more depressed than I already was after seeing the handful quotes in the OP. So I can't speak for the author's viewpoint and his methodology in selecting the responses (although yeah, it's pretty easy to see why there could be a bias). Still, I (sadly) don't think the overall point can be entirely dismissed on this basis.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The title of this thread is exactly why liberals will continue to lose Appalachia.

TNF wins the thread. As has been said before, at least the GOP pretends to care about rural whites. The Democrats approach is "STFU about guns, coal and abortion and do what you're told you ignorant rube".

Why is it that Democrats' lack of appeal to Appalachia/The South is so scandalous; yet the GOP being trounced in the Northeast Corridor (undoubtedly still an important central nervous system of American wealth, education, industry, innovation) over and over and over is a non-story? 

At the same time, how is a party to appeal universally in such a diverse country?  The Democratic Party must somehow keep it's liberal, urban base while at the same time putting a smile on the face of Joe Six Pack the God-fearing factory worker from Tennessee?  How?! 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

LOL, the reason coal is screwed has nothing to do with Democrats being anti-coal. If you want more coal, horses, or bayonets, you were probably a Romney supporter.

Bayonets can still be useful, just so long as they are at the end of a rifle and not a carbine and most assuredly not at the end of a smooth-bore musket.  There are still times when a sharp blade is the most appropriate military need, tho admittedly not as often as a century or two ago.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It might be a good idea to consider that people don't (normally) choose to be uneducated.

If we assume that voting for Republicans is irrational if you're poor (which it generally is, of course), we should ask why the people in question are not aware of this.

And if you think about the media in America, the totally screwed up secondary education system, etc....I don't think one claim that it's just a matter of dumbs being dumb.

Well said.

[Mr. Illini]

The title of this thread is exactly why liberals will continue to lose Appalachia.

TNF wins the thread. As has been said before, at least the GOP pretends to care about rural whites. The Democrats approach is "STFU about guns, coal and abortion and do what you're told you ignorant rube".

Why is it that Democrats' lack of appeal to Appalachia/The South is so scandalous; yet the GOP being trounced in the Northeast Corridor (undoubtedly still an important central nervous system of American wealth, education, industry, innovation) over and over and over is a non-story? 

Because people in the Northeast don't go around talkin about how we need small government and conservative business policies and then vote Democrat. They are wealthy but know that they want liberal economic policies. Meanwhile, poor southerners talk about how bad the government is but actually favor big-government economic policies.

One thing that is important to note here, though, is coal. While everything in OP is true, they also have strong reasoning to vote for the pro-coal party, as it is the main driver of the Appalachian economy.