Sorry if this is a repost. I thought this John Nichols article made a good point about a populist message winning in SD and the implications for Democratic wins in rural areas. I think it's a shame that Democratic leaders in large cities on the east and west coast can't believe that an economic populist message is more effective at winning swing voters than a wish washy moderate one. They are out of touch with the South and Midwest. Here's part of the article:
.....
It has been a very long time since Democrats were on the rise in rural America, in large part because the party has abandoned the economic populist, pro-small farmer themes that were traditionally its greatest strength.
Herseth's homey campaign embraced populist economic messages about the need to protect family farms and revitalize rural America. After she lost the 2002 race, Herseth went to work with the South Dakota Farmers Union, the local affiliate of the progressive National Farmers Union, and her campaign this year reflected an understanding of the issues that most concern rural America. She criticized free-trade agreements that have harmed the interests of farmers and rural communities and she strongly supported Country-of-Origin Labeling (COOL) legislation that protects the interests of US farmers. In addition, Herseth attacked the Bush Administration's assaults on Medicare and the President's promotion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and for corporations that ship jobs overseas.
Is there a recipe here for Democrats as they seek to win the dozen seats they need to retake control of the House? Perhaps.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0603-07.htm