Heartland Democrats to Washington: You're Killing Us

“I am a Democrat. I am a Democrat from rural Indiana.”

That Goodin, 51, who has held political office for more than 17 years, felt the need to say this out loud speaks to the divisions bedeviling the Democratic Party. A father of three and the superintendent of a 500-student school district, Goodin is the last Democrat in Indiana who represents an entirely rural area. A member of the Indiana Farm Bureau, the National Rifle Association and the Austin Church of God, he’s an anti-abortion, pro-gun, self-described “Bible-poundin’, aisle-runnin’” Pentecostal. This unusual profile for a Democrat makes him a species nearing extinction within the national party, but it’s also the very reason he keeps getting reelected here. This paradox is why he is prominently featured in a report set to be made public Thursday by the leadership PAC of third-term congresswoman Cheri Bustos.

Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/11/terry-goodin-rural-democrats-indiana-216273

In order to win, these guys are saying, the national Democrats are going to have to tolerate white working class people who are Christian, like guns, don't like abortion, don't like Muslims, don't like gay marriage, etc. Can you imagine the current Democratic base accepting that, or even learning to be quiet about it? I don't think so.

I'm sure Goodin's advice will go unheeded by the national party, which regards people like him as anathema. I mean to say that people in the Democratic base get right down hateful and spiteful when it comes to people like Goodin, who they seem to regard has having no right to even be alive, much less having a voice in their party. The author of this piece was apparently unable to get a direct, on point comment on it from anyone representing the national party. The only response from one of Pelosi's deputies was to say that they were focusing more on pocketbook issues.

The only question for me is why someone like Goodin would ever be a Democrat these days. Other than supporting public school, Democrats don't uphold any of his values any more. I suppose it's just pure stubbornness. His grandfather and father were democrats, but it's time to wake up.

LowDown said:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/11/terry-goodin-rural-democrats-indiana-216273

In order to win, these guys are saying, the national Democrats are going to have to tolerate white working class people who are Christian, like guns, don't like abortion, don't like Muslims, don't like gay marriage, etc. Can you imagine the current Democratic base accepting that, or even learning to be quiet about it? I don't think so.

I'm sure Goodin's advice will go unheeded by the national party, which regards people like him as anathema. I mean to say that people in the Democratic base get right down hateful and spiteful when it comes to people like Goodin, who they seem to regard has having no right to even be alive, much less having a voice in their party. The author of this piece was apparently unable to get a direct, on point comment on it from anyone representing the national party. The only response from one of Pelosi's deputies was to say that they were focusing more on pocketbook issues.

The only question for me is why someone like Goodin would ever be a Democrat these days. Other than supporting public school, Democrats don't uphold any of his values any more. I suppose it's just pure stubbornness. His grandfather and father were democrats, but it's time to wake up.

Click to expand...

Why Anyone would want to be a member of the DNC or GOP is beyond my understanding, neither truly represents the people, not even those that elected them. We get the Government We Deserve.

Probably because he does not share any of the values of the Democratic Party. Why should Democrats give up their base to compete directly with Republicans for rural socially-backwards districts? It does not make any sense politically or electorally. You could make the opposite argument for Republicans. Should the Republicans embrace pro-abortion positions and same-sex marriage to get the more urban vote?

Carjosse said:

Probably because he does not share any of the values of the Democratic Party. Why should Democrats give up their base to compete directly with Republicans for rural socially-backwards districts? It does not make any sense politically or electorally. You could make the opposite argument for Republicans. Should the Republicans embrace pro-abortion positions and same-sex marriage to get the more urban vote?

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Democrats lost their asses over the past 7 years.

I'll it again: let's hope the Democrats never figure it out. Since Leftists think they're intellectually superior, there's a damn good chance it will never happen.

apdst said:

Yeah, but the Democrats lost their asses over the past 7 years.

I'll it again: let's hope the Democrats never figure it out. Since Leftists think they're intellectually superior, there's a damn good chance it will never happen.

Click to expand...

What good would giving up their base and competing for the Republicans possibly accomplish?

Carjosse said:

What good would giving up their base and competing for the Republicans possibly accomplish?

Click to expand...

Win some elections?

apdst said:

Win some elections?

Click to expand...

In what world would that work? How is giving up your base and fighting for Republican strongholds a winning strategy? Elections are won in the suburbs, that is not how you win suburban votes, it is more likely to run them off even further.

Carjosse said:

In what world would that work? How is giving up your base and fighting for Republican strongholds a winning strategy? Elections are won in the suburbs, that is not how you win suburban votes, it is more likely to run them off even further.

Click to expand...

That kind of short sighted thinking is a good example of why Trump won.

Carjosse said:

Probably because he does not share any of the values of the Democratic Party. Why should Democrats give up their base to compete directly with Republicans for rural socially-backwards districts? It does not make any sense politically or electorally. You could make the opposite argument for Republicans. Should the Republicans embrace pro-abortion positions and same-sex marriage to get the more urban vote?

Click to expand...

This.

Republican victories are not down to them embracing some sort of hidden conservative populism. No, it has more to do with low turnout for the Democrats, where liberal voters stay home because the candidates are not their first choice, or even worse yet because they believe their vote is not needed. When a large percentage of liberal voters have that mentality, it has devastating results for the Democrats. It happened to Gore in 2000, to Kerry in 2004, in the midterms 2010, and to Clinton in 2016.

For whatever we say about conservatives, they back their party. They may not like the person they're voting for, and might even be aware they are corrupt, but they will vote for corrupt Republicans if it keeps a progressive out of office. Even after all the infighting from the primaries, they put aside their differences, swallowed their pride, and voted for Trump because they realized he was their only shot at that point. Meanwhile, progressives divided themselves by either staying home out of spite of Clinton, voting for some obscure third party candidate, and some even had the impression that their vote was needed for Clinton to win.

That's why we keep getting into these messes. The sooner progressive voters figure that out, the sooner we'll start winning again.

More fake news.

Carjosse said:

In what world would that work? How is giving up your base and fighting for Republican strongholds a winning strategy? Elections are won in the suburbs, that is not how you win suburban votes, it is more likely to run them off even further.

Click to expand...

Explain to me how the current strategy has been working out for the Democrats?

I think you're missing the whole "representive government" thing.

MovingPictures said:

This.

Republican victories are not down to them embracing some sort of hidden conservative populism. No, it has more to do with low turnout for the Democrats, where liberal voters stay home because the candidates are not their first choice, or even worse yet because they believe their vote is not needed. When a large percentage of liberal voters have that mentality, it has devastating results for the Democrats. It happened to Gore in 2000, to Kerry in 2004, in the midterms 2010, and to Clinton in 2016.

For whatever we say about conservatives, they back their party. They may not like the person they're voting for, and might even be aware they are corrupt, but they will vote for corrupt Republicans if it keeps a progressive out of office. Even after all the infighting from the primaries, they put aside their differences, swallowed their pride, and voted for Trump because they realized he was their only shot at that point. Meanwhile, progressives divided themselves by either staying home out of spite of Clinton, voting for some obscure third party candidate, and some even had the impression that their vote was needed for Clinton to win.

That's why we keep getting into these messes. The sooner progressive voters figure that out, the sooner we'll start winning again.

Click to expand...

Yep. When the Republicans win, it's almost always due to lower turn out among Democrat voters. When Democrats turn out in large numbers, they can easily defeat Republicans. Obama's election and re-election are irrefutable proof of that.

Puigb said:

Yep. When the Republicans win, it's almost always due to lower turn out among Democrat voters. When Democrats turn out in large numbers, they can easily defeat Republicans. Obama's election and re-election are irrefutable proof of that.

Click to expand...

No. Independents and moderates decide elections. It has nothing to do with bases showing or not showing up.

LowDown said:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/11/terry-goodin-rural-democrats-indiana-216273

In order to win, these guys are saying, the national Democrats are going to have to tolerate white working class people who are Christian, like guns, don't like abortion, don't like Muslims, don't like gay marriage, etc. Can you imagine the current Democratic base accepting that, or even learning to be quiet about it? I don't think so.

I'm sure Goodin's advice will go unheeded by the national party, which regards people like him as anathema. I mean to say that people in the Democratic base get right down hateful and spiteful when it comes to people like Goodin, who they seem to regard has having no right to even be alive, much less having a voice in their party. The author of this piece was apparently unable to get a direct, on point comment on it from anyone representing the national party. The only response from one of Pelosi's deputies was to say that they were focusing more on pocketbook issues.

The only question for me is why someone like Goodin would ever be a Democrat these days. Other than supporting public school, Democrats don't uphold any of his values any more. I suppose it's just pure stubbornness. His grandfather and father were democrats, but it's time to wake up.

Click to expand...

Why should democrats play to people who hate the military, hate minorities, and hate America? Rural areas are hotbeds of anti American sentiment.

NonoBadDog said:

That kind of short sighted thinking is a good example of why Trump won.

Click to expand...

Then where are they won then?

Moderate Right said:

No. Independents and moderates decide elections. It has nothing to do with bases showing or not showing up.

Click to expand...

And where do those independents and moderates live? The suburbs, not rural areas.

apdst said:

Explain to me how the current strategy has been working out for the Democrats?

I think you're missing the whole "representive government" thing.

Click to expand...

The Democrats and Obama won the suburbs in 2008. Since then that is where Republicans have been winning. What exactly do the Democrats gain by competing for the Republican base and abandoning their own? If that actually happened the parties would just flip sides of the political spectrum again, you can't have two parties fighting for the same base.

Why should both parties fight for the same rural base?

So why doesn't this guy Goodin run for Congress as the radical Democrat he is -- or someone like him there run for the U.S. House.

Maybe because in 2008 when OB won Indiana the Congressman from the congressional district Mike Pence wuz reelected with 63% of the vote. Pence also won the CD easily when he was elected god, er, governor, in 2012.

The CD hasn't elected a Democrat since Jimmy Carter wuz Potus. The Democratic Party doesn't need a guy in the House in Washington who can out Pence Pence or outdo this ****kicker Goodin. That is, if a D could get elected to Congress from this CD to begin with, which a D can't do without outdoing the rightwing Republicans the CD likes, elects, thumps Bibles with.




Rather, the dozen-plus CD's along the Ohio River Valley remain a key to D's winning a House majority in 2018 and beyond. When D's won the House in 2006 with a net gain of 31 seats they won CD's up and down throughout the Ohio River Valley and Basin. In one CD for instance a county sheriff in IN won an R seat on the river because voters trusted him and liked his moderate views on social issues and his balanced views on law enforcement, immigration, his views on the economy and the like. He got blown out in 2010 because of Obamacare (and the guy from the central Ohio wine consuming country John Boehner became speaker to succeed Nancy Pelosi).

In the 2010 Republican recapture of the House Mike Pence in the Austin Indiana district Goodin lives in won reelection with 66.5% of the vote. Fergit it. Instead take note of those decisive dozen-plus Ohio River Valley CD's that are on fire this year with D party candidates and activity. The fight is there, not in the Ma and Pa Kettle provinces.

Carjosse said:

The Democrats and Obama won the suburbs in 2008. Since then that is where Republicans have been winning. What exactly do the Democrats gain by competing for the Republican base and abandoning their own? If that actually happened the parties would just flip sides of the political spectrum again, you can't have two parties fighting for the same base.

Why should both parties fight for the same rural base?

Click to expand...

A lot of the suburban "base" are people who want to exercise their second amendment rights. What do the Democrats offer them?

Moderate Right said:

A lot of the suburban "base" are people who want to exercise their second amendment rights. What do the Democrats offer them?

Click to expand...

Joining their state's militia, i.e., the National Guard. They'd then also become subject to the discipline and rigor of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under the Constitution and by formal oath to it.

Moderate Right said:

No. Independents and moderates decide elections. It has nothing to do with bases showing or not showing up.

Click to expand...

Turnout is most often the decisive factor across the voting groups.

Clinton lost mostly because too many Democrats stayed home. Trump won because Ma and Pa Kettle stormed the polling stations, often in record numbers.

The vast and huge majority of so-called independents consistently lean and vote for one party over the other....



A "pure" independent voter is an eminently laughable proposition.



The OB vote in key "swing" states tells us how independents voted made no difference to the election outcome:

INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State





Moderates ain't what youse used to be either.

Manc Skipper said:

More fake news.

Click to expand...

How so?

LowDown said:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/11/terry-goodin-rural-democrats-indiana-216273

In order to win, these guys are saying, the national Democrats are going to have to tolerate white working class people who are Christian, like guns, don't like abortion, don't like Muslims, don't like gay marriage, etc. Can you imagine the current Democratic base accepting that, or even learning to be quiet about it? I don't think so.

I'm sure Goodin's advice will go unheeded by the national party, which regards people like him as anathema. I mean to say that people in the Democratic base get right down hateful and spiteful when it comes to people like Goodin, who they seem to regard has having no right to even be alive, much less having a voice in their party. The author of this piece was apparently unable to get a direct, on point comment on it from anyone representing the national party. The only response from one of Pelosi's deputies was to say that they were focusing more on pocketbook issues.

The only question for me is why someone like Goodin would ever be a Democrat these days. Other than supporting public school, Democrats don't uphold any of his values any more. I suppose it's just pure stubbornness. His grandfather and father were democrats, but it's time to wake up.

Click to expand...

Seems to me this guy is the flip side of something which is much rarer (or maybe even extinct): the liberal Republican.

But in the long term, the "working class white" is not as crucial as you seem to think. Yes, they're important, and we want to help them succeed, too...but just as it would be wrong for us to ignore them, it would also be wrong for us to ignore those who are NOT working-class whites. Gotta do what's right for everyone...and embracing white nationalism (as an uncomfortably-large portion of the GOP seems to want to do) doesn't do that.