How would the map look if the Dem/Rep nominee ran on ending farm subsidies?

[Crumpets]

We hear a lot about how Democrats are already at their lowest possible level in rural America and have nowhere to go but up from here. But I feel like this is really something not entirely outside the realm of possibility (although still very unlikely) that might make their standing in rural America even worse. Is there still more room to fall, and how would it shape the rest of the election if the Democrat ran on a policy of ending farm subsidies?

On the flipside, how would it look if a Republican did it? I know they wouldn't, but let's just imagine the nominee is some anti-handout, anti-welfare, anti-subsidy purist?

[Kingpoleon]

Considering there are 2.6 million farmers? Not good for whoever does it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Trump could probably get away with it and still win Iowa.

[izixs]

I'm not entirely sure what the rational would be to push it in any sort of obvious fashion. Aka, to 'run on' it. But...

It would probably have very little effect on the Democrat's numbers because they have been totally abandoned by farm country at this point. Any losses there would be countered by people elsewhere going 'about time' or similar. Both populations are very small.

If the Republican did such, that's a more interesting question. To a degree they might pitch it as an 'ending t3h socialisssms!!' which would keep a number of their usual rubes happy, but those who are not so foolish and who are farmers and/or agri-business types who realize that this will affect their bottom line would push back against it. Though I'm doubtful they'd flip to the other side, they may very well just stay home, upping the Dems percentage in numerous states and possibly giving them slim wins in surprising places. This might begin a new farmer caucus on the left which helps keep some of the marginal house seats won recently in farm country.