Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ransom Cozzillio's avatar

I know it's not the purview of this post, but when you mentioned that it hard to win someone's vote when you're hoping their industry goes away it made me think of the Democrat position towards tech.

Now, the political alignment among those working in tech has a much more favorable baseline for Dems, and Dems tend to win the areas heavy in those employees anyway.

However, while fossil fuel industry directly employed a shade over a million people in 2024. Tech employed ~9 times that. So if the Biden admin and current left's antagonistic position toward tech costs them 10% of the tech vote that's WAY more harmful than gaining 50% of fossil fuel employees (a percentage flip that is in no way feasible) in raw vote terms.

None of this is to say I disagree with the post and framing more specifically on doing better with rural voters. In fact, I agree with basically everything. Just made me think of other area where similar ideological dynamics are costing the party.

Expand full comment
Mabuse7's avatar

Ok, well I can tell you right now that this isn't going to happen. It's not going to happen because there's no way in hell the Democratic base will go along with it. You can't expect progressives to just shut up and be marginalised within their own party for the sake of outreach that probably won't work and, if it did, would lead to outcomes they find only marginally less odious than what the Republicans would deliver. If you're serious about climate change how could you accept cheering for more oil and gas production for any reason? If rural voters are offended by that, why should progressives be the ones to change and not them? I think you're going to have to accept that the Democratic base is fundamentally incompatable with the culturally conservative rural voters you want to reach out to, in both policy preferences and general worldview, and neither side is going to play nice with the other.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts