What explains Hillary's collapse in agricultural/farming areas?

[Matty]

I can understand her collapse in manufacturing rural areas and small towns that were built on making things.

What I don't get is her collapse in areas where farming is the main activity. Farmers sell lots of produce to foreign nations, so wouldn't they be less supportive of donald's trade policies?

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

She collapsed in rural areas in general, and WWC voters swung massively towards Trump - that alone probably explains her doing poorly in farming areas.

[James Monroe]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

[The Govanah Jake]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

Such great insight.

[Sumner 1868]

2016 was a terrible year for farmers. This is probably the worst period they've had since the 1980s.

http://agfax.com/2016/04/04/farm-crisis-iowa-land-values-drop-6-in-6-months-bankers-watching/

http://www.crestonnews.com/2016/08/15/what-is-to-be-done-farm-crisis-in-the-making/acnspon/

[IceSpear]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

Such great insight.

This, unironically though.

[krazen1211]

They can smell a garbage human being a mile away.

[IceSpear]

They can smell a garbage human being a mile away.

I think you're confused. They voted FOR Trump.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's true, though. There's a whole swath of country bumpkins that holds as its most animating issue the invasion of scary Muslims/refugees. Just take a look at facebook. The Democrat sometimes wins a few of those people because the Republican rarely appeals directly to their racist tendencies. But if you've got candidate parroting your facebook shares to a T on the national stage, that's what you're going to vote for. And there's not much the Democrat can do to shake things up.

I know, I know. Barack's middle name is "Hussein" and he won them over. Well, he won a few more of them, sure, but he didn't win them outright. And when he's against guys like McCain or Romney who won't come right out and say that Muslim's should be banned, of course there's some room for the bumpkins to go on populist left economics instead. They're not getting what they really want from any of the candidates.

Trump changed everything. He won because of his crassness and vulgar positions, not in spite of them.

[darklordoftech]

They associated Hillary with Obama.

[Mr. Smith]

Farming areas tend to be reliant on fossil fuels and thus fracking is important.

[RINO Tom]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

Such great insight.

This, unironically though.

Even if a lot of rural voters for Trump were racist, I don't think places like rural Minnesota and Eastern Iowa/Western Illinois were ever talked about as being overly "racist" before the narrative needed to be that way for some ... there are probably better explanations for it, and I think that's obvious.  Additionally, some cities like Boston have a very ugly racial history, and their White areas still went for Clinton, no?  Just saying that "how racist you are" - even if there was a correlation - is probably not the best predictor of your vote.

[Young Conservative]

The Democrats and mainstream Republicans have totally ignored rural Americans for years. They finally had someone speaking to them, and his name wasn't Hillary Clinton.

[IceSpear]

It's true, though. There's a whole swath of country bumpkins that holds as its most animating issue the invasion of scary Muslims/refugees. Just take a look at facebook. The Democrat sometimes wins a few of those people because the Republican rarely appeals directly to their racist tendencies. But if you've got candidate parroting your facebook shares to a T on the national stage, that's what you're going to vote for. And there's not much the Democrat can do to shake things up.

I know, I know. Barack's middle name is "Hussein" and he won them over. Well, he won a few more of them, sure, but he didn't win them outright. And when he's against guys like McCain or Romney who won't come right out and say that Muslim's should be banned, of course there's some room for the bumpkins to go on populist left economics instead. They're not getting what they really want from any of the candidates.

Trump changed everything. He won because of his crassness and vulgar positions, not in spite of them.

Indeed. In retrospect, McCain and Romney's mistake was not going full racist. It wouldn't have worked for McCain since there was too much going against Republicans that year, but it very well could've worked for Romney.

[Alabama_Indy10]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

My IQ dropped while reading this.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's true, though. There's a whole swath of country bumpkins that holds as its most animating issue the invasion of scary Muslims/refugees. Just take a look at facebook. The Democrat sometimes wins a few of those people because the Republican rarely appeals directly to their racist tendencies. But if you've got candidate parroting your facebook shares to a T on the national stage, that's what you're going to vote for. And there's not much the Democrat can do to shake things up.

I know, I know. Barack's middle name is "Hussein" and he won them over. Well, he won a few more of them, sure, but he didn't win them outright. And when he's against guys like McCain or Romney who won't come right out and say that Muslim's should be banned, of course there's some room for the bumpkins to go on populist left economics instead. They're not getting what they really want from any of the candidates.

Trump changed everything. He won because of his crassness and vulgar positions, not in spite of them.

Indeed. In retrospect, McCain and Romney's mistake was not going full racist. It wouldn't have worked for McCain since there was too much going against Republicans that year, but it very well could've worked for Romney.

McCain sort of tried to with bringing up Bill Aires, and it actually backfired.

[Liberalrocks]

It's true, though. There's a whole swath of country bumpkins that holds as its most animating issue the invasion of scary Muslims/refugees. Just take a look at facebook. The Democrat sometimes wins a few of those people because the Republican rarely appeals directly to their racist tendencies. But if you've got candidate parroting your facebook shares to a T on the national stage, that's what you're going to vote for. And there's not much the Democrat can do to shake things up.

I know, I know. Barack's middle name is "Hussein" and he won them over. Well, he won a few more of them, sure, but he didn't win them outright. And when he's against guys like McCain or Romney who won't come right out and say that Muslim's should be banned, of course there's some room for the bumpkins to go on populist left economics instead. They're not getting what they really want from any of the candidates.

Trump changed everything. He won because of his crassness and vulgar positions, not in spite of them.

Indeed. In retrospect, McCain and Romney's mistake was not going full racist. It wouldn't have worked for McCain since there was too much going against Republicans that year, but it very well could've worked for Romney.

It might have worked for McCain if he had pushed Reverend Wright, but he refused to go dirty. Palin started to go rogue and with “the establishment” media pushing back hard. If McCain had maybe it would have rallied the same Trump minion base?...

[uti2]

It's true, though. There's a whole swath of country bumpkins that holds as its most animating issue the invasion of scary Muslims/refugees. Just take a look at facebook. The Democrat sometimes wins a few of those people because the Republican rarely appeals directly to their racist tendencies. But if you've got candidate parroting your facebook shares to a T on the national stage, that's what you're going to vote for. And there's not much the Democrat can do to shake things up.

I know, I know. Barack's middle name is "Hussein" and he won them over. Well, he won a few more of them, sure, but he didn't win them outright. And when he's against guys like McCain or Romney who won't come right out and say that Muslim's should be banned, of course there's some room for the bumpkins to go on populist left economics instead. They're not getting what they really want from any of the candidates.

Trump changed everything. He won because of his crassness and vulgar positions, not in spite of them.

Indeed. In retrospect, McCain and Romney's mistake was not going full racist. It wouldn't have worked for McCain since there was too much going against Republicans that year, but it very well could've worked for Romney.

It might have worked for McCain if he had pushed Reverend Wright, but he refused to go dirty. Palin started to go rogue and with “the establishment” media pushing back hard. If McCain had maybe it would have rallied the same Trump minion base?...

Actually, the Mccain/Palin strategy did prove to be somewhat effective pre-Lehman brothers. If you look at the swing state polling from before Sep. 15, Mccain polled better in swing states than Romney ever did.

[uti2]

R.E Mccain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

[VPH]

Lots of takes here seem to come from people who probably have not spent any time talking to rural voters or campaigning in small towns.

A big part of it is the bifurcation that's been happening for some years now as Democrats have become a more urban party and the Republicans more rural. However, while Obama's share declined from 2008 to 2012, Hillary got butchered.

1. Minimal attention was paid to rural areas by the campaign. See the article linked below. Substantially fewer offices were opened in rural areas than by Obama's campaign either time. Sure, Trump seemed to eschew ground game but in many places, there was just no Democratic voice.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2017/11/16/16665756/shrinking-democratic-ground-game

2. As others have mentioned, the farm economy is doing awful right now. Farm incomes declining, lots of people selling their property. Trump's message resonated in places where the population has been declining, schools have closed, opioids are wreaking havoc, etc. There was a political appetite for change, which is why in many rural areas (the South excepted), Bernie Sanders performed well.

3. There really is a cultural divide, be it real or perceived. Bill Clinton understood how to bridge it, and advised the campaign to focus more on rural issues, but it's clear that the campaign wasn't geared to reach out to rural voters. The Politico article on this subject mentions that "a staffer in Brooklyn was dedicated to rural outreach, but the assignment came just weeks before the election".
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-rural-voters-trump-231266

4. Too socially liberal in a careless fashion. Obama wasn't socially conservative by any means but he had calculated positions that he knew how to sell, especially in 2008. Hillary just went all in on social issues.

5. Fairly or unfairly, people just really didn't like Hillary, and without Democratic voices on the ground there was nothing to counter this.

[IceSpear]

It's true, though. There's a whole swath of country bumpkins that holds as its most animating issue the invasion of scary Muslims/refugees. Just take a look at facebook. The Democrat sometimes wins a few of those people because the Republican rarely appeals directly to their racist tendencies. But if you've got candidate parroting your facebook shares to a T on the national stage, that's what you're going to vote for. And there's not much the Democrat can do to shake things up.

I know, I know. Barack's middle name is "Hussein" and he won them over. Well, he won a few more of them, sure, but he didn't win them outright. And when he's against guys like McCain or Romney who won't come right out and say that Muslim's should be banned, of course there's some room for the bumpkins to go on populist left economics instead. They're not getting what they really want from any of the candidates.

Trump changed everything. He won because of his crassness and vulgar positions, not in spite of them.

Indeed. In retrospect, McCain and Romney's mistake was not going full racist. It wouldn't have worked for McCain since there was too much going against Republicans that year, but it very well could've worked for Romney.

McCain sort of tried to with bringing up Bill Aires, and it actually backfired.

Too much of a dog whistle. The voters wanted their racism shots straight.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

If this isn't hyperbole, prepare to lose in 2020. Most of those areas voted for Obama in the previous elections.  White supremacists are a loud, but shrinking minority.  It's like saying Samoans in the US boosted results.  There aren't that many, or you're putting false labels on people like an SJW.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

If this isn't hyperbole, prepare to lose in 2020. Most of those areas voted for Obama in the previous elections.  White supremacists are a loud, but shrinking minority.  It's like saying Samoans in the US boosted results.  There aren't that many, or you're putting false labels on people like an SJW.

While racism was absolutely a huge indicator of support for Trump, I'd guess what caused Hillary's collapse in rural areas was sexism. (So the Dems should be fine if they nominate a man.)

[Inmate Trump]

People sometimes vote against their own interests.

For example, Christians voted for Trump.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

There are many racists who lived out in the rural parts of the country. Trump ran on a white supremacist platform, which is what the voters were craving, even with his destructive trade policies damaging the local economy. It was a hard road for Hillary to make inroads with.

If this isn't hyperbole, prepare to lose in 2020. Most of those areas voted for Obama in the previous elections.  White supremacists are a loud, but shrinking minority.  It's like saying Samoans in the US boosted results.  There aren't that many, or you're putting false labels on people like an SJW.

While racism was absolutely a huge indicator of support for Trump, I'd guess what caused Hillary's collapse in rural areas was sexism. (So the Dems should be fine if they nominate a man.)

So someone like an Ann Coulter, Condoleezza Rice, or Kelly Ayotte wouldn't pull in conservative votes?  I don't believe that for a second.