Obama scoring points with rural voters...

[scbelle]

I don't think it's because they don't know any better. I think his comment underscores the impotence of both parties historically to address the issues of this part of the electorate with any real meaning, and since those economic options have been lacking, it's been easy to vote issues.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by scbelle

I don't think it's because they don't know any better. I think his comment underscores the impotence of both parties historically to address the issues of this part of the electorate with any real meaning, and since those economic options have been lacking, it's been easy to vote issues.

Please expand upon what you think the parties have failed to address with real meaning, concerning this portion of the electorate. Thanks.

[scbelle]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Please expand upon what you think the parties have failed to address with real meaning, concerning this portion of the electorate. Thanks.

Well, just for starters, the theory of trickle-down economics might look good on paper, but just like in science, what actually arrives at the bottom is pretty meager compared to what gets left at the top. Republicans have tried their best to stimulate corporate growth, but at the same time, they have stimulated corporate greed. So businesses are always looking for ways to cut corners and make more money for their shareholders. That might mean closing businesses here and taking jobs overseas, leaving communities open to economic hardship.

On the Democratic side, welfare is a big, fat mess. The people who have worked all their lives don't want some crappy handout from the government. They have too much pride for that, and rightfully so. Unfortunately for all the rhetoric for bringing people up, what's happened is that welfare as is tends to keep people down.

Both parties share blame for NAFTA and not making sure there were proper labor insurances.

IN this most recent administration, our hands have been tied and we can't really afford the programs we have. Yet our president finds it necessary to pay trillions of dollars to a war that is stupid (Iraq, not Afghanistan). China owns our asses and our children's children's asses. It is a very sad state of affairs. The money is going out the window, and so is the political capital. There hasn't been sufficient time or energy paid to the home front, either. So people are suffering.

You'll have to forgive my slight rambling... I'm posting after my normal bedtime hours.

[pbear19]

To me, part of the problem to is that the GOP cannot at the moment claim truthfully to be the 'small government' party, because that is not what has happened in recent history. I am a democrat, but I have a BA in economics and am not a fan of gigantic government, not with the inefficiences intrinsic to governmental agencies and operations. Sadly I don't think much of anyone anymore really believes in smaller government, certainly not the Bush administration.

So while I disagree that much of the people voting republican are doing so because they don't know any better, I do believe that some are. They cannot tell the difference between what republicans and democrats offer fiscally, they don't believe that it will make any difference either way as they have little disposable income and a lot of taxes regardless. So they are bitter and they cling to the political issues that are easy for them to hold in their hearts.

But, 33girl said it much better than I did with her analogy.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by scbelle

Well, just for starters, the theory of trickle-down economics might look good on paper, but just like in science, what actually arrives at the bottom is pretty meager compared to what gets left at the top. Republicans have tried their best to stimulate corporate growth, but at the same time, they have stimulated corporate greed. So businesses are always looking for ways to cut corners and make more money for their shareholders. That might mean closing businesses here and taking jobs overseas, leaving communities open to economic hardship.

On the Democratic side, welfare is a big, fat mess. The people who have worked all their lives don't want some crappy handout from the government. They have too much pride for that, and rightfully so. Unfortunately for all the rhetoric for bringing people up, what's happened is that welfare as is tends to keep people down.

Both parties share blame for NAFTA and not making sure there were proper labor insurances.

IN this most recent administration, our hands have been tied and we can't really afford the programs we have. Yet our president finds it necessary to pay trillions of dollars to a war that is stupid (Iraq, not Afghanistan). China owns our asses and our children's children's asses. It is a very sad state of affairs. The money is going out the window, and so is the political capital. There hasn't been sufficient time or energy paid to the home front, either. So people are suffering.

You'll have to forgive my slight rambling... I'm posting after my normal bedtime hours.

So is it your theory that if we provide these people with the opportunity to vote in their economic self-interest, they may be less likely to vote based on faith, the 2nd Amendment, etc...? I think that is what many people find condescending.

I think a lot of your points are valid, but I'm not sure what the solutions are (especially considering that I think I know which way you're going to vote).

I think your statements on Iraq are slightly petty, ("yet our president...") as if there is an easy solution to this situation that he is refusing to accept.

Another interesting dilemma I see was prompted by your reference to China (this isn't really about what you said). Considering their burgeoning economy, how would someone on the left propose that we continue to compete, while also pursuing climate change remedies? Increased environmental regulation is certainly something that could impact the very voters Obama was referring to.

[scbelle]

No, what I'm saying is that if we have decent economic solutions, then those topics won't be the ONLY things these people are voting for. I think 33girl summed it up nicely. But they will have more of a choice, and that's what democracy is all about. It could be that, after all is said and done, one may choose to vote on the basis of faith or the 2nd amendment in addition to (or perhaps even in contrast to)the economic policies. My personal belief is that the true Southern democrat needs to rise again.

As far as you question re: China, I'm much too tired to put forth the effort right now. My kneejerk reaction to your answer is that if I had a possible answer, I'D be running for POTUS.

And you're damn skippy I'm being petty about the current POTUS. His decision to invade a country when there were voices telling him that it wasn't a good idea to do it the way he wanted to, that there was evidence that what he was basing his decision on was wrong, etc... well, he's either a fool or one stubborn son of a gun. Either way, my family and quite a few of my friends have paid the price in real terms, and well, I'm bitter. What can I say?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by scbelle

No, what I'm saying is that if we have decent economic solutions, then those topics won't be the ONLY things these people are voting for. I think 33girl summed it up nicely. But they will have more of a choice, and that's what democracy is all about. It could be that, after all is said and done, one may choose to vote on the basis of faith or the 2nd amendment in addition to (or perhaps even in contrast to)the economic policies. My personal belief is that the true Southern democrat needs to rise again.

As far as you question re: China, I'm much too tired to put forth the effort right now. My kneejerk reaction to your answer is that if I had a possible answer, I'D be running for POTUS.

And you're damn skippy I'm being petty about the current POTUS. His decision to invade a country when there were voices telling him that it wasn't a good idea to do it the way he wanted to, that there was evidence that what he was basing his decision on was wrong, etc... well, he's either a fool or one stubborn son of a gun. Either way, my family and quite a few of my friends have paid the price in real terms, and well, I'm bitter. What can I say?

Fair enough on China. I don't know the solution either, but this is a point my liberal friends raise a lot (environmental regulation), and I think it is going to be a tough road in this regard.

I disagree on Bush, but I don't think much progress will be made in that regard. I don't think the administration has done an admirable job, but I think shifting the blame to him and arguing that this is "his war" is a cop out (not sure if you feel this way or not, I'm just getting a similar impression). But, I do recognize that people certainly feel differently about this, and while I do my best to echo the sentiments of my friends in the military, I imagine your friends (and you) are probably ideologically different.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

pbear19 and 33girl,

From your interpretations, Obama is saying that people are falling back on issues such as gun control, religion, family values, etc. because they have no faith in any candidate to improve anything that "really matters", like their economic situations?
That doesn't really sound any better to me. I'll be voting for John McCain- and it certainly isn't because I'm clinging to my social issues.

First, no republican likes what Hillary or Obama are saying about healthcare, jobs, etc. That's why there are two parties that are completely different. Republicans and Democrats pursue things differently.

Johnstown, PA, which I referenced in my earlier post, is probably 80% Democrat.

It's not about "sounding better" - Obama is just stating the way things are, and the mindspace a lot of voters are actually in, and no one else has the balls to do so.