AN63093
63093
Jr. Member
Posts: 871
Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 2.17
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2017, 04:41:09 PM » |
|
Anyways, back to the topic, the OP needs to be more specific. Are you just talking about rural whites? It's not very precise to just say "rural people," because you have rural blacks in the Deep South, rural hispanics in NM, etc. Different rural areas are going to probably trend different ways.
Now if you mean the stereotypical rural white person that you've imagined in your mind, which is what I suspect you mean, then here's the analysis:
First, options 2/3 aren't going to happen (rural people/country stops existing). Options 4/5 (Dems change) may occur, but that won't trend back rural areas by itself, because option 1 is false (i.e. rural areas will become economically left).
If this was 100 years ago, then that would be a possibility, but the makeup of rural America has substantially changed since then. The stereotypical "family farmer" out on his "frontier homestead" like something out of The Wizard of Oz, is practically non-existent these days. Most people in rural areas are either working in agri-business in large corporate farms, oil/gas industry, ranching, or are cluttered around smaller towns in the service industry (e.g., retail workers at the local Wal-Mart, etc.). There are also industrial workers, such as in meat-packing plants, that are mostly poorer Hispanics. For example, Tyson has a lot of these throughout the plains states.
Of the latter category, turnout isn't high enough (nor are the numbers concentrated enough) to make a big enough difference. Of the former categories, these are all very R constituencies, for a variety of reasons. They are economically conservative, but not necessarily on every issue (e.g., farm subsidies being a good counter example), and are also very individualistic and culturally conservative (so options 4/5, Dems shifting populist, wouldn't be enough).
Option 6 (rural voters become less conservative) probably won't happen, but even if it did, the GOP would still probably win large amounts of rural areas. Even if there was a realignment and the GOP was focused on New England/Northeast, the GOP would still be winning most interior West areas (see basically every pre-New Deal election for examples of this).
Option 7 won't happen (GOP collapses); that is mostly just a Dem fantasy.
I agree with Skill&Chance, that Option 8 is the only option that would actually do it (GOP becomes less rural focused). I could see that happening if we got a combination of two things: a) polarization based on racial stratification in the parties becomes worse, and certain rural areas become heavily Hispanic (and their turnout increases); b) other rural areas become so de-populated (e.g., due to complete automation of large corporate farms), that the GOP is forced to focus more on urban areas.
As to when this will happen, not before the 2030s at the earliest. If there was an "after 2030" option I would've voted that. But since there wasn't, I voted 2030s and option 8 (GOP is less rural focused).
|
Poll
