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.
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.
I’m with you on this. I don’t think the ideas laid out in the article would lead Democrats in the right direction, save for maybe a basic cost of living agenda.
Some of these make sense - we do need to enable housing and lower prices. But some of them are 'win conservative votes by becoming Republican,' in which case why bother? Democrats should champion oil and gas and not be scared by climate activists? You'd get some votes, and yes help your conservative voters keep their oil and gas jobs. But if that's all you're offering, the Republican party can do that, and climate change will continue being a real and increasingly catastrophic problem. What we need is industrial policy that helps people stay employed, but move towards sectors that aren't enabling that catastrophe (which is already increasing the intensity of disasters affecting those same voters - see Texas on July 4th).
This article reads like a repeat of what I heard before the 2024 election, where a lot of center-left Democrats wanted to - and in some cases did - throw marginalized groups under the bus in order to court more conservative/rural swing voters. It didn’t really work.
We can focus on cost of living. We can come up with programs that celebrate what fossil fuel workers bring/brought to the table while helping them to move to green energy jobs. But on the cultural issues such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights & equality, racial equality and more, we cannot afford to budge.
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.
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.
Nah, I'm a Democratic base voter and I'm perfectly happy to give an inch on these issues if it helps win some votes.
I’m with you on this. I don’t think the ideas laid out in the article would lead Democrats in the right direction, save for maybe a basic cost of living agenda.
Some of these make sense - we do need to enable housing and lower prices. But some of them are 'win conservative votes by becoming Republican,' in which case why bother? Democrats should champion oil and gas and not be scared by climate activists? You'd get some votes, and yes help your conservative voters keep their oil and gas jobs. But if that's all you're offering, the Republican party can do that, and climate change will continue being a real and increasingly catastrophic problem. What we need is industrial policy that helps people stay employed, but move towards sectors that aren't enabling that catastrophe (which is already increasing the intensity of disasters affecting those same voters - see Texas on July 4th).
This article reads like a repeat of what I heard before the 2024 election, where a lot of center-left Democrats wanted to - and in some cases did - throw marginalized groups under the bus in order to court more conservative/rural swing voters. It didn’t really work.
We can focus on cost of living. We can come up with programs that celebrate what fossil fuel workers bring/brought to the table while helping them to move to green energy jobs. But on the cultural issues such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights & equality, racial equality and more, we cannot afford to budge.