MyDD :: Capturing the Rural Vote

Capturing the Rural Vote

by Mike Connery, Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:38:03 PM EST

Tucked away at the end of the latest newsletter from Young Voter Strategies is some interesting poll results from Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner Research and Greener and Hook about the political leanings of rural voters. YVS did the dirty work of pulling out the youth stats from the crosstabs (pdf) and here's what they found:

Two-thirds (67%) of 18-29 year old rural voters say they feel the country is on the wrong track, while 21% say it's going in the right direction.

48% approve of President Bush's job performance, while 47% disapprove. (Overall, the survey found 44% approval and 52% disapproval)

On party identification, 46% of rural 18-29 year olds identify as Republican, 43% as Democratic, and 11% as Independent.

In 2004, the group of 18-29 year olds surveyed voted 55-35 in favor of George W. Bush over John Kerry.

One-quarter (26%) of 18-29 year olds say Iraq is the most important issue the President and Congress should pay attention to, followed by energy & gas prices (19%), illegal immigration (14%), the economy & jobs (13%), and health care (11%).

When asked to pick between generic Republican and Democratic presidential candidates for 2008, 48% chose the Democrat and 40% the Republican. Conversely, when asked to choose between unnamed Republican and Democratic presidential candidates as described by two issues/values statements, 53% chose the Republican and 46% the Democrat.

This is great news, because it means we can actually be competitive again in these rural districts. It's pretty clear that Democrats could stand to make some solid gains in rural districts in 2008 if these trends continue. I'm particularly looking at the difference between the hypothetical candidate numbers and the actual numbers for Bush v. Kerry.

It looks like one of two things is happening: either independents (like elsewhere in the country) are swinging to the Dems and making us more competitive in these districts, or the rise of the more progressive Millennial Generation - which only comprised half of the 18-29 age bracket in '04 - is changing the partisan makeup of these rural districts. On first glance, the numbers on partisan identification seem to belie this theory, but I'd be willing to bet that in 2004 Democratic self identification was much lower than 43%, and Republican and Independent ID was higher.

I'd love to hear from folks in rural districts which they think is happening - more progressive Millennials entering the electorate, or more independents and moderate Republicans swinging to the left. I'd also love to hear what they are doing to engage and motivate young voters to make the most of this swing. As I'm sure you've all heard by now, young people tend to pick their party allegiance during the first three major elections in which they vote. Investing in these voters now can give Democrats a solid base within rural districts for years to come.

The report accompanying the poll (pdf - only 7 pages, read it) has a lot of equally good news about the general rural electorate. More info on that after the jump.

Emphasis mine:

Bill Clinton successfully contested the rural vote in 1992 and in 1996, but in the four election cycles since, rural America has been the heart of the Republican base.

Currently, however, voters divide evenly in a generic election for President (46 - 44 percent for a Democratic candidate), reflecting a 21-point swing away from the Republicans. Democrats lead 42 - 31 percent among Independents, 51 - 39 percent among blue collar voters and 46 - 43 percent among voters with family fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Democratic candidate also runs evenly (44 - 46 percent) in counties carried by Bush in 2004.

At the congressional level, Republicans won 2004 with a 10-point margin, but barely held on in 2006, as noted. At present, the Democrats enjoy a 46 - 44 percent margin in named trial heats.3 Most notably, looking only a districts that switched parties in 2006, the Democratic margin grows to 56 - 34 percent (e.g., Kansas 2, Iowa 2 and North Carolina 11). While the sample size here is fairly small, it appears it will be a severe challenge for Republicans to reclaim these seats.

I'll leave it to you to pick out and discuss more of the details about the general electorate in rural districts.

Tags: youth vote, rural vote, polling (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Making inroads (none / 0)

I think that depends on which candidate we nominate... Edwards has rural appeal, Obama has youth and minority appeal, and Hillary has... well... ehrm...

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:50:06 PM EST

Re: Making inroads (none / 0)

If you look at the report, Hillary is actually the most alienating of all the candidates in rural districts.

Obama and Edwards are essentially tied. This is among the whole rural electorate - not just youth.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 12:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Important BUT (none / 0)

Much like the large generic lead for Democratic presidential candidates amongst the population as a whole, the 48-40 lead is pretty misleading.

Even when they're not given a name (and neither candidate is going to be known as Generic Democrat/Republican in November 2008,) merely a statement of their positions, the Republican possesses a seven point lead.

People are more receptive to Democrats now, but not as receptive as they might claim to be.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:42:14 PM EST

Re: Important BUT (none / 0)

True,

I think the more interesting things will happen downticket where close races can start to tip Dem, or previously uncompetitive districts start to becoem competitive.

That competition in itself can start driving higher turnout, particularly among younger voters who are likely to be more progressive. So while rural states and rural districts may still choose Bush for President, we might be able to make headway in state legislatures, school boards, mayors, etc.

If people are self identifying more as Democrats, or leaning away from the Republicans, that opens up possibilities for us to grow the party where previously none existed.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:47:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Important BUT (none / 0)

What kind of Democrats? I realise partisanship is important, but we have to make sure at least some of them are progressive. If somebody's an R on the issues, the fact that he sticks D after his name does nothing to strengthen our bench.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Important BUT (none / 0)

No doubt, but just because someone hails from a rural district doesn't mean they're a Lieberdem. Look at Schweitzer and Tester.

I'm just saying that if rural voters are giving Dems a second look - or if more progressive Millennials are starting to change the partisan makeup of those districts - we've got opportunities to make gains locally and nationally. We should seize them.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 08:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The White South Skews These Numbers (3.00 / 2)

I'd like to point out that the White South makes up 34% of this sample (274 out of 804), which puts a significant skew into the results. We desperately need to stop thinking of "rural voters" as an undifferentiated block. They certainly share some common concerns, but they represent vastly different cultural and political traditions as well.

We need to realize that the white rural South is one of the hardest groups for us to reach, and we should not be fooled by their inclusion into overlooking the distinctive opportunities afforded by rural voters elsewhere.

by Paul Rosenberg on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 02:38:50 PM EST

Re: The White South Skews These Numbers (none / 0)

This is a great point. Thanks.

I agree rural voters in some areas (Mountain and Pacific Northwest?) are proving to be much more amenable to Democratic candidates than those in the south might.

I think everywhere (rural/urban, youth vote, older voters, women, etc.) we always need to be aware that demographic categories are broad generalizations and there are variations within all such categories.

For years I argued that we needed to stop thinking about "youth" as a monolithic voting block. The lesson is true in all voting blocks. Thanks for the reminder.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Capturing the Rural Vote (none / 0)

I am no polling expert, but having lived in a rural small town in southwestern Minnesota most of my life, I have noticed a slow but now accelerating trend toward Democrats -- the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party as we call it here -- even in our distant outpost. (The nearest city of any size, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is more than 100 miles away.) The voting margin between Republicans and DFLers here grows smaller each election. In 2006, for the first time, voters in our heretofore notoriously gop town backed the incumbent DFL state legislator -- a development that astounded even him -- against a well-funded wingnut opponent.

Bush's many failings have led a number of gops of my acquaintance either to jump ship altogether or to grow uncharacteristically silent on the subject. No longer confined to us chronic malcontents, criticism of and disdain for Bush are becoming more open and widespread. My impression is that women and young people are a good part of the driving force behind the positive movement in a progressive direction. From what I can see from my little place in our big country, the era of conservative dominance is, if not quite dead yet, surely breathing its last.

by Jerome Clark on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 03:50:39 PM EST

jobs (3.00 / 1)

My cousins live in the Big Woods of Pennsylvania. They lost their jobs at the local electric company, and now they have no prospects at all.

There are no jobs in rural areas. When small farms were destroyed by Big Agro, factory farms, CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations), and the rise of oligopolistic distribution chains, when the small manufacturing operations (where I grew up was the world headquarters for small tool and die operations) were lost to Asia, and finally WalMart destroyed the few retail outlets that were left, now there are no jobs at all in rural areas.

If Dems wanted to get long-term loyalty in rural areas, they would concentrate in bringing jobs to rural areas. Encourage small farms (organic?), encourage small businesses (sustainable living?), reverse monopolies in agriculture.

It won't help to allow the Republicans to claim the Dems are encouraging more illegal aliens to take the few jobs that are left...even if it is the Republican corporations pushing it and the formerly liberal Dems merely selling out to the Republican cheap labor interests.

numen

by numen on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:01:49 PM EST

Re: jobs in rural Pennsylvania (none / 0)

Are they in the lumber areas? Rendell's got some scheme to turn lumber industry trash (wood chips, etc.) into ethanol, which should bring jobs like the windmills have. And Clarion and Lock Haven state universities have small business development centers.

(Sorry. Long ago I led job search and career development workshops, and I can't resist giving advice when the topic comes up.)

by joyful alternative on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 10:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.