Barack Obama, on the verge of his own premature victory celebration, had time to visit Michigan this week -- a state where he voluntarily removed his name from the ballot for political gain in Iowa, then subsequently blocked a re-vote.  But apparently he couldn't squeeze in even one visit to the Bluegrass State in advance of its primary this Tuesday.  Not to worry, though, Obama assured the people of Kentucky from afar that he'd be back before November to win them over.

In lieu of visiting Kentucky to ask voters personally for their support, Obama has spent a fortune in television and radio ads, plus handbills, that play up his Christianity.  He's also found the time to blame a bunch of people, including FOX News and political opponents, for his impending double-digit loss there.  Arriving on the heels of a humiliating 41-point defeat in neighboring West Virginia (where he spent a few hours campaigning), it would be understandable if Obama was feeling a little down about now.


Appalachia, a region rich in battleground electoral votes, is most definitely Clinton Country.  A set of maps courtesy of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections illustrates Hillary's overwhelming Appalachian advantage.  In case the legend is hard to read, dark blue in the top map shows counties Clinton has won (light blue is Obama). In the bottom map, pink represents Republican-won counties in the general elections of both 2000 and 2004; dark blue is for counties won by Democrats in both years; and those won by Democrats in only one of the two years are light blue.

The Democratic Party should study this data carefully.  Hillary Clinton has the same populist appeal in the region as her husband, who won more than half of these states in 1992 and 1996. Remarkably, even as the mainstream media writes her obituary, in general-election surveys Clinton still out-polls "presumptive nominee" Barack Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio. And, based on her strong primary performances, Hillary gives the Democrats tangible hope in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee for the first time since 1996.

So...while Barack Obama writes off another swing state, Hillary Clinton continues to solidify her popularity with the people of Appalachia, working like a die-hard Democrat should to build the party's base, going door-to-door stumping for votes in Kentucky.

And the people of Kentucky, like their neighbors in West Virginia, will come out in full force this Tuesday -- ignoring all the grand displays of victory by Obama -- to tell America that they want Hillary Clinton for President.

Word from the Clinton campaign is that Kentuckians are warm and hospitable hosts.  I sure hope Barack Obama has the opportunity in his lifetime to spend a bit of time in Bluegrass Country getting to know them.

Cross posted at texasdarlin and Taylor Marsh


TexasDarlin, all rights reserved
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign

The New Mexico Republican Party is fielding an ad in rural southern New Mexico that plays off of Barack Obama's comments on April 11 about the bitterness felt by some rural Pennsylvanians over economic issues.  Obama suggested that the bitterness could lead some Pennsylvanians to support hot button issues that have little meaning to their lives.  What Obama said can be heard here.

The NM Republican Party ad can be heard by clicking here,

Crossposted at The Nebraska Progressive:

(Hat tip to Paul over at Nebraska Blue who got me thinking about this.)

"Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic coast, but the hardy pioneers who have braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose - the pioneers away out there [pointing to the West], who rear their children near to Nature's heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds - out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their young, churches where they praise their Creator, and cemeteries where rest the ashes of their dead - these people, we say, are as deserving of the consideration of our party as any people in this country. It is for these that we speak."

- William Jennings Bryan

Are we, as Democrats, doomed to dismiss what could be our greatest block of voters in 2008. The rural vote in Nebraska is far too important for our party to lose this cycle. In fact, we can not win statewide without it. But how exactly do we do that, and which candidate is more likely to build a Democratic coalition among those voices that mindle with the birds.

Two words: Mike Johanns.

Although the ten SEIU state chapter endorsements of John Edwards have understandably dominated the recent blogosphere chatter about Edwards, I want to call attention to a different aspect of his campaign. Edwards is on a two-day swing through western and central Iowa, where he is highlighting his policy agenda for small towns and rural areas. When Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, I believe small-town and rural voters will play as important a role as union members.

Earlier today the Edwards campaign in Iowa announced the formation of a Statewide Rural Advisory Committee. From the campaign website:

The committee consists of a wide group of leaders including first responders, business leaders, elected officials and agricultural leaders. The committee will work with the campaign's 99 Rural County Chairs to advise Edwards on the issues facing rural Iowans and spread his detailed plans to strengthen rural towns and communities across America. Edwards was raised in a small rural town and has made rural revitalization a cornerstone of his campaign. In August, the campaign announced more than 1,000 rural supporters showing Edwards' broad support throughout rural Iowa.

The biggest name on this committee is Denise O'Brien, who endorsed Edwards over the summer and will help him tremendously with progressives as well as rural voters. Denise, an organic farmer and the founder of the Women, Food and Agriculture Network, was the Democratic nominee for secretary of agriculture last year. She shocked Iowa politicos by winning the Democratic primary by a large margin, despite the fact that her opponent, Dusky Terry (a great guy by the way), had the strong backing of Tom Vilsack and virtually the whole Democratic establishment in Iowa.

Denise narrowly lost the general election for secretary of agriculture, but she has many passionate supporters in the Iowa environmentalist community. Environmentalists were a significant factor in John Kerry's caucus victory in Iowa.

But I digress. This post is about rural voters. Most of the people on the Edwards Statewide Rural Advisory Committee may be little-known outside their home counties, but when it comes to turning out caucus-goers, a respected figure from someone's home town is probably even more valuable than a statewide celebrity.

In addition to having a strong team working to turn out rural and small-town voters, Edwards has put forward a solid policy agenda for rural America. You can download his plans on the issues page of his campaign website. Edwards has a deep knowledge of the the issues affecting small-town America, and his current swing through Iowa is focusing on a different aspect of his rural recovery plan at each venue.

His first event today was in Dunlap, Iowa, where he focused on agricultural issues including country-of-origin labeling. He discussed protecting family farms at his next event in Harlan. Later in the day, he held a town hall meeting at a high school in the small town of Exira, where he focused on his plan to strengthen rural schools. (As you probably know, Edwards was educated in rural public schools.)

Edwards' final two events today were in Greenfield and Waukee (suburb of Des Moines), where he talked about economic development plans for rural areas, with a focus on main street development and incentives for small business creation. That issue is particularly close to my heart, as both of my grandfathers ran small businesses and I despise so-called economic development plans that are basically just corporate welfare.

Why should you care whether Edwards appeals to rural voters? I mean, besides the fact that his policy ideas are really good?

Well, if you are an Edwards supporter you will be pleased to know that caucus-goers in rural counties punch above their weight when the state delegates are tallied.

But even if Edwards is not your favorite candidate in the primary, you should be aware that a strong showing among rural voters will put many more states into play for our Democratic nominee. ManfromMiddletown made a strong case for this analysis in his diary on electability.

I also refer you to this report from the Center for Rural Strategies:

The rural vote is critical in presidential and congressional elections because large Republican majorities among rural voters have helped overcome Democratic advantages in urban areas. With the rural advantage eroding for the GOP, both parties may look more carefully at the rural vote in the coming elections.

"The rural vote determines presidential elections," said Dee Davis, president of the nonpartisan Center for Rural Strategies, which sponsors the poll. "Democrats don't win unless they make rural competitive, and Republicans don't win without a large rural victory. So you'd think that would mean the candidates would have a spirited debate on the things that matter to rural Americans, but we haven't heard it yet."

In the 2004 and especially the 2006 elections, Democrats began to make up ground against the GOP with rural voters. That was a big change from the 1990s, when rural voters swung significantly against the Democratic Party. I believe that John Edwards would be by far the best candidate in our field to continue this trend, which would hurt the GOP badly.

But maybe you don't care about rural voters and are buoyed by opinion polls showing that any of our top Democratic contenders could win a presidential election.

I urge you to consider this: the presidential election is more than 50 statewide elections. It also coincides with 435 House races and thousands of races for the state legislature.

As we know, gerrymandering has helped the GOP control more U.S. House seats than they deserve in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Too many Democrats in those states are packed into House districts that send Democrats to Congress with super-majorities. Consequently, many of the House seats we are trying to pick up contain significant numbers of rural and small-town voters.

What that means is that even if any of our candidates could win Ohio (or Pennsylvania, or Michigan, or Florida) in a presidential election, we have a better chance of winning more House seats if our candidate at the top of the ticket is appealing to the rural electorate. Holding down the GOP margin with these voters will bring big gains down-ticket.

The same goes for state legislative districts. If we want to improve our position in state legislatures going into the 2010 census and redistricting process, it will help to have a presidential candidate in 2008 and a president in 2010 who does not alienate rural voters.

All these factors reinforce my belief that John Edwards would be the best general-election candidate in our very strong Democratic field.

Sally Jo Sorensen is a writer, researcher and educator who lives in rural Minnesota.  She blogs as Ollie Ox at A Bluestem Prairie. This is part of Farm Bill blogging.

Since its founding in 1985, the League of Rural Voters has worked with rural Americans to create change.  One part of the League's mission is to challenge candidates to "take clear positions on farm and rural policy issues" and "to allow rural voters to support and elect representatives committed to increased investments in rural education, health care and sustainable economic development."

The LRV and other progressive rural advocacy groups have much at stake in the 2007 Farm Bill now being marked up in the House Agriculture Committee, with the Senate version to be considered late in the summer.

Executive Director Niel Ritchie took some time to talk about what a progressive Farm Bill might look like.  "A progressive Farm Bill would reallocate the budget to more appropriately reflect the needs of rural communities and America as a whole," said Ritchie.

Unfortunately,"there's a finite amount of money," Ritchie observed, noting the House's adoption of paygo rules. "But that shouldn't stop Congress from moving in the right direction," he added, citing  the recent addition of the Conservation Security Program (CSP) to federal farm programs.  A project created by the 2002 Farm Bill, CSP had proven to be dramatically effective though it was limited in scope.

According to Ritchie, changes in the 2007 Farm Bill should serve three criteria: they should improve the economic lot of small and medium size farmers; offer consumers healthful food, and conserve soil and water.  "The goal should be to champion natural systems of production over the industrial model of agriculture," he said.

Following up on polling from last month that showed rural voters split evenly between the Democrats and the Republicans, Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg and Republican pollster Bill Greener conducted another survey this month for the non-partisan Center for Rural Strategies and the numbers are pretty overwhelmingly good for the Democrats.

The rural vote has shifted in favor of Democratic congressional candidates in the last month, indicating Republicans are losing ground with a key constituency, according to the Center for Rural Strategies Poll.

The poll of rural voters in 41 contested congressional districts found that likely voters preferred Democratic candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives by a margin of 13 points, 52 percent to 39 percent. In mid-September, the same population of voters was evenly split between the two parties at 45 percent each.

[...]

"We're seeing a real erosion in Republican support among rural voters, and that could determine who controls Congress," said Democrat Anna Greenberg, one of the poll's analysts. "There has been a perfect storm of issues that have led rural voters toward Democratic candidates -- the war in Iraq, economic struggle in rural communities and a muddling of 'moral values' because of the Mark Foley scandal."

"The numbers in this poll have to be disturbing to any Republican involved in the upcoming election," said Bill Greener, a Republican strategist and consultant on the poll. "Republican success has relied on strong support from rural voters, and this survey indicates we don't have that support today. We have to do better if we are going to reach our objectives on Election Day."

A significant shift to the Democrats in the rural vote could augur well for the party's efforts to win control of the House on November 7. As I noted last month, "Democrats are competitive or potentially competitive in a number of mostly rural districts currently held by Republicans including: Arizona 1 (Renzi), Kentucky 2 (Lewis), Minnesota 1 (Gutknecht), New Hampshire 2 (Bass), New York 23 (McHugh), North Carolina 11 (Taylor), Ohio 18 (Ney), Pennsylvania 10 (Sherwood), and Wyoming At-Large (Cubin)." Additionally, there are at least another dozen or more contested Republican-held seats like Washington 5 (McMorris) and Nevada 2 (Open -- Gibbons) that contain large amounts of rural voters, any major shift among whom could directly impact the outcome of individual races.

Now obviously the caviats that apply to generic congressional balloting among all voters also apply to such poll questions among rural voters. It's quite possible, for instance, that Democratic performance on election day is not quite as strong as it is in these pre-election polls, perhaps by as much as a half-dozen percent (though I don't think it will be that high). Nonetheless, given that George W. Bush trounced John Kerry by close to 20 points among rural voters, the fact that the Democrats are at least competitive now among rural voters and quite possibly actually leading is a striking shift, and one that could sway control of the 110th Congress from the GOP to the Democratic Party.

In 2000, Al Gore managed to receive the support of just 37 percent of rural voters. In 2004, John Kerry performed slightly better within this demographic, scoring 40 percent support. A study conducted by Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg and Republican pollster Bill Greener for The Center for Rural Strategies, however, shows that the Democrats have a great opportunity this year to win significantly more rural votes this year than in years past, potentially swinging key congressional races in their favor.

The rural vote is up for grabs, according to a poll of rural voters in contested congressional and Senate races released today by the Center for Rural Strategies.

And how well the parties do in rural America is likely to determine who controls Congress.

The poll of rural voters in 41 contested congressional districts with significant rural populations found Democratic and Republican candidates running a dead heat, with each party receiving 45 percent of the possible votes. In six contested Senate races in states with significant rural populations, rural voters favored Republican candidates 47 to 43 percent, but the gap falls within the poll's margin of error of 4.3 percentage points, making a statistical tie.

We are already seeing the effects of this new dynamic among rural voters playing out in a number of congressional races around the country. Currently, Democrats are competitive or potentially competitive in a number of mostly rural districts currently held by Republicans including: Arizona 1 (Renzi), Kentuck 2 (Lewis), Minnesota 1 (Gutknecht), New Hampshire 2 (Bass), New York 23 (McHugh), North Carolina 11 (Taylor), Ohio 18 (Ney), Pennsylvania 10 (Sherwood), and Wyoming At-Large (Cubin). Democrats' chances in mixed districts -- those in which a majority of the population neither lives in urban, suburban or rural areas -- are potentially even better. For instance, independent polling released today from one such district, Indiana's 8th district, shows Democratic nominee Brad Ellsworth trouncing Republican incumbent John Hostettler by 15 points.

If the Democrats' position among rural voters holds and they can manage to garner 45 percent of the rural vote -- or more -- in key congressional races this year, it's difficult for me to imagine the Republicans maintaining control of the House in January 2007.