How to win the red states

[Done]

Where do people get the information that helps to shape their opinion? There is the national news media and there is the local news media. There is also the internet, but it has a limited and mostly younger audience. Perhaps twenty years from now most people will get their information from the internet, but for now let’s look at the traditional news sources, local and national.

National News Media - The national news media is largely infotainment, and mostly it keeps people informed on the latest missing pretty white girl. The political side of the national media consists of talk shows like O’Rielly, Scorborough and many other conservatives and neoconservatives. Clearly the nationally media is controlled by the right. They distract attention away from their control over the media by claiming that the liberals control the media. This means that when anyone points out that conservatives control the media, the media will say it only goes to show that they are “unbiased” since both sides claim the media is against them. And with their control over the media, the right’s claim that the left controls the media is a lot louder.

Local Media - The local news media can be separated into two categories. There are urban areas, and there are rural areas. In urban areas there are many local news sources, and with the all the competition, you will usually find some news sources that lean to the left. It is the liberal leaning urban newspapers that are often used by conservatives to deceive people into believing that the news media is liberal. This is not to say that any of the corporate urban newspapers are actually all that liberal, but competition means that some of them will lean to the left for marketing reasons (although, no more than they have to). Democrats do well in most urban areas because there is usually going to be at least one news source that will provide people with some of the liberal perspective.

In rural areas there may be only one or two local news sources. With little or no competition, the corporate owner has no reason to deviate from the preferred conservative perspective. This means that the vast majority of local news sources in rural America are conservative. They have been for decades. People in rural American (who don’t use the internet a lot) will get their information from the conservative national media, and/or they will get their information from the conservative local media. Is it any wonder why most people in rural America are conservative? This is why the Democrats can not win in the South, or much of the Midwest and West. People in these areas are given the conservative position and they are given the conservative definition of the liberal position. (This is how they have turned ‘liberal’ into a derogatory word in rural America).

We can not expect any Democratic nominee to effectively communicate the liberal perspective to the 300 million American citizens. Their words are reduced to sound bites. One man or woman can not overcome the news media. Unless and until the left can obtain a national news organization (television) that will honestly express the liberal view, our chances of regaining power are slim to none. It doesn’t matter who we nominate.

At the current time it looks like shrub is in trouble, but with their control over the media, is there any doubt that this will be turned around before the next election? Our main priority has got to be the establishment of a liberal voice in the national news media (television). If we can’t do this, anything else we attempt will fail.

There was talk a few months ago about trying to gain a voice in the national media, what happened to it? It will require a lot of money; but if need be, we can look to our friends overseas for help. It is as much in their interest to stop the corporate neoconservatives as it is ours.

Done

[TwilightZone]

1. You missed one rather obvious source, and probably the biggest...

Other people. Friends, family, acquaintances, etc. I'd argue that culture and environment are more important than the media, particularly in the red states.

If most of your friends and acquaintances are liberal or most are conservative, it often won't matter what the media says. Politics is embedded in who people are, and their political allegiances aren't as easily swayed by the media as many would like to believe.

If people are so easily swayed, why is nearly half of the population still Democrat? With the constant barrage of conservative media over the past few years, it doesn't seem to have had much net effect.

This is particularly true in conservative America. Many, many people vote Republican for no reason other than that their parents or grandparents did or all of their friends do. Well, that, and the fact that red America IS conservative.

Changing the media isn't going to magically turn them into liberals. Changing the media isn't enough to win the red states. Conservatism is in the culture, so we either need to figure out how to change the culture (good luck) or provide a strong enough alternative to the status quo to convince people to cross over.

[Done]

2. It isn't necessary to change everyone.

A five percent shift would turn many red states blue. It isn't necessary to change people all that radically. Most people in rural America are not hardcore conservatives, and they can be persuaded to vote liberal (since it is in their best interest). You are correct that TV is not the only influence in our lives, but it doesn't have to be. TV can, however, shift the balance.

[TwilightZone]

7. "Most people in rural America are not hardcore conservatives"

I hate to break it to you, but that's untrue in large chunks of rural America. States like NE, SD, ND, MT, UT, ID, KS, OK, and significant portions of many other rural states are indeed very conservative.

"A five percent shift would turn many red states blue".

Then, they aren't really "red" to being with.

[Done]

8. Do you live in a red state?

I've lived in one for over ten years. There are democrats here, but yes most voters are republican. Among republicans there are some who are fanatic, and I would never discuss politics with them, as they appear to be somewhat dangerous. Others who vote republican are calm and rational, yet misinformed by the media and the other influences in their lives. These people can be persuaded, they are not really bad people, they have simply been misinformed. They have no liberal influences in their lives. Not on TV, and not in their personal lives. How can they believe in the liberal position if they have never been told the liberal position?

The question is, do we believe that the liberals have persuasive arguments? If not what are we doing here? It's like the lady I met who was against gay marriage. When I told her that a gay person can lay dieing in a hospital bed without being allowed to see their loved ones, she agreed that there should be some type of civil union (it's a start). No one ever told her that gays were being treated in this way. How can you expect people to believe in the liberal arguments, if no one is telling them the liberal arguments? They aren't hearing it from their friends, family or co-workers, and they aren't hearing it from the TV.

There are many influences in our lives. Our friends, family and co-workers, but we are also influenced slightly by the TV, and what about those friends and co-workers who influence us? They too are influenced slightly by the TV.

TV is powerful, and we can not ignore the conservative control of the TV as a major reason for their success.

[TwilightZone]

10. Yes.

Grew up in South Dakota and have lived in Nebraska for 15 years, roughly 14 years longer than I wanted.

Even the Democrats here tend to be moderate or somewhat conservative, including our barely-a-Democrat Senator, Ben Nelson.

The conservatives are generally very conservative and are in families that have been conservative for generations. Bush's approval ratings in this state, even now with all of the negative press lately, are still in the 60s. To these people, he can STILL do no wrong.

Yes, TV can be an influence, but I think its effect on converting people from one ideology to another is highly overrated, particularly in areas that are very conservative or very liberal. You don't see large numbers of liberals jumping ship to support Bush because of the media. If anything, it's reinforced their beliefs to the contrary.

People in truly red states were conservatives well before TV began the big push right and will continue to be so even if we retake it.

Lastly, here is perhaps the most important point. These people do not WANT to be liberal and they don't CARE whether or not they ever get the liberal point-of-view, and they're more aware of liberal views than you might expect. It's deeply cultural and familial and it's not something easily influenced.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. They're *socially* conservative, but not necessarily

politically/economically conservative.

[TwilightZone]

12. Not sure which "they" you're referring to.

If by "they" you mean the public, in general, then I'd have to disagree. Nebraskans are economically conservative (with the notable exception being their support of farm subsidies), as well as socially. Conservatism permeates everything. It is quite depressing.

If by "they", you mean Democrats in Nebraska, then that is somewhat more accurate, though the percentage is pretty low, probably because most of them were smart enough to get out.

If by "they", you mean politicians like Ben Nelson, he's still pretty moderate/conservative on economic issues, particularly issues like free trade. Though, to be fair, if he wasn't a moderate, he probably never would have gotten elected here in the first place.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. What I mean is that while they might, for example, be opposed to

the hot button issues of abortion and gay marriage, they may be economically more liberal in the sense that, if you asked them "Who needs tax cuts more, you or the president of Archer Daniels Midland?" or "Should people be denied life-saving health care because they can't pay for it?" or "Should American companies be allowed to export jobs without penalty?" or "Should people who get too deeply into debt through no fault of their own be allowed to make a fresh start?", you'd probably get answers that are more "liberal" than you think.

[TwilightZone]

20. Perhaps. Though, you might be surprised.

The main difference that I see between conservatives here and conservatives that I've dealt with elsewhere is that here, they tend to be even more egocentric (if that's possible).

Generally, they are out for themselves to the point of singlemindedness, and they take on a "screw the world, where's mine?" kind of attitude. It reflects in everything they do, from the way they approach work to the way they drive. To many, there is exactly one car on the road - theirs - even if it's rush hour.

They support Bush because they see themselves in him (which, in itself, is scary) and they think that they can relate to him. Many don't see the fact that Bush is trying to trash social programs as a problem - they think that they're unnecessary in the first place. Social Security being the probable exception.

To give you some perspective, I'll answer your 4 questions in the way that I suspect that an average Nebraska, rah-rah Bush voter would answer them. If I'm exaggerating, it isn't by much.

1) It's not the government's money in the first place, it's our money. They get too much of it the way it is. (Note: nothing about Bush and/or the fact that his tax cuts were a bad idea. Also, nothing about ADM, because this is about me, not ADM.)

2) Why should they get it if they can't pay for it? We have to pay for it, so they should, too. Why don't they have a job that provides insurance? (We've had a couple of high-profile cases recently where the patient had no insurance, and this, sadly, was the typical response of interviewees on the news.)

3) The answer you'd get would depend on the industry. It would probably be closer to our reality than other issues, but then you'd also get a bunch of whining about immigration thrown in, even though that's a different issue.

4) See #2, modified slightly to include "that's why our interest rates, taxes, etc., are so high, because of these deadbeats." Statement still applies if said bankruptcy is due to medical bills. Said statement doesn't apply if party seeking banko is a business.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but it's difficult to believe what it's like in red state land until you've actually spent some time here. I grew up in conservative South Dakota and was in no way prepared for how much more conservative Nebraska is. These people are conservatives because they think that it gives them an excuse to be self-centered, bigoted, racist, and ignorant. Well, that they are.

It's like an alternate reality here. And the scary thing is that I live in one of the least-conservative parts of the state.

[calimary]

23. Seems to me you have to get subversive with these people.

In the checkout line. At the dry cleaners. At the self-serve gas pump. In line for the movies. Waiting for your table at a restaurant. Waiting with the other moms and dads in the pick-up/drop-off line. At the local coffee place (where they invariably have copies of the day's newspaper lying around).

ANYWHERE you are with other people - in a situation where you can drop in a subtle little aside.

Say you see a headline on one of those newspapers that's lying around, or maybe something in one of the magazines while you're waiting for your turn at the grocery check-out. You turn absently to the next guy/girl, indicate or otherwise point to what you just spotted, shake your head in disgust, and mumble, almost absently, AND with a sigh" "(sigh) well, that's what you get when you vote Republican..." and just let your voice trail off. Maybe another shaking of the head or a dejected "tsk" sound. THEN, LET IT GO. Unless, of course, they challenge you or more innocently ask "oh really?" and then you can add a line about how we little guys ALWAYS wind up getting screwed when the Republicans get their way, or "they only look out for the rich people, not us" or "too bad we all don't have a hundred grand to send to the Republican Party, 'eh? They'd make us a priority then, wouldn't they?" or "almost 19-hundred of our kids have died over there and that bush hasn't even bothered to go to a single one of their funerals..." or "they sure talk a good game but they're nothing but reverse Robin Hoods - we've NEVER had this big a budget deficit!" or "yeah, isn't it funny how the people say leave social security alone, but they're still gonna go behind our backs and mess with it anyway" or "they can't even account for what they've spent on that STUPID war that they lied about... no wonder there's no money to solve this problem with..."

Something like that. You get the idea. Just ONE SENTENCE-worth if you get a chance to make a second remark. Even just the one "(sigh) that's what you get when you vote Republican..."

It's called planting a seed. VERY subtle. You don't even leave any fingerprints. That's how you POISON THE WELL. You leave a bad taste in their mouths IN ASSOCIATION WITH something republi-CON. Just plant the seed and then leave - and let it take root, and fester.

[calimary]

27. I thought of something else, too:

Some more quick comments to make in casual encounters like these:

"MAN! Those Republicans. They're SUCH liars."

"Wonder what the excuse will be next week?" (about the war and why we went in and why we have to stay)

"Oh great, we need to keep sending more of our kids to die to honor the kids we already sent to die."
OR
"Yeah... (sigh)... we've just GOT TO send more of our kids to die for a lie."
OR
"Wonder how badly he'd want to keep the war going if his daughters were over there..." (about the "stay the course" crap)

"All that's missing here is one of those Jon Lovitz lines - 'yeah...THAT'S the ticket!'"
OR
"bush sounds just like Jon Lovitz - 'yeah...THAT'S the ticket'"
OR (how to sound authentic and innocent - like a REAL civilian:)
"he sounds just like that 'Saturday Night Live' guy who lied all the time - remember? 'Yeah...THAT'S the ticket!'" (about anything bush says - reinforce his being a LIAR)

"Yeah, and I'm sure Jesus is telling him to kill." (about any attempt to portray bush as being somehow anointed by God)

"Why doesn't he just act like a man and go meet with her? Afraid or somethin'?" (about Cindy Sheehan)

"All those 'Yay-War' people - seems to me we've ALREADY heard more than enough from them."
OR
"Yeah. Those 'Yay-War' people. We TRIED IT their way. Look where it's gotten us." (about the anti-Cindy, and YES - "Yay-War" people - VERY important to cast them in an UNFAVORABLE light. Call 'em what they are: "Yay-War" people)

Just some thoughts. Or - okay - TALKING POINTS.

[Roland99]

9. Looking at the county election map shows the rural areas are the red ones

just so happens enough of the population still lives in the exurbs and rural areas to overcome the city-dwellers.


Well...tossing in some well-oiled corruption doesn't hurt either.

[boise1]

3. Hit the nail on the head

I'm afraid many people here in neon-red Idaho rely more on co-workers, neighbors, coffee shop chatter, and fellow church members for information (good or bad) than on the news media. Presenting a progressive point of view to a group of culturally-biased conservatives can gain you a few smirks and raised eybrows, but having the facts to back up your point can also result in some thoughtful discussion.

[Imagine My Surprise]

5. You are so correct!

As the saying goes, "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." (Did I first hear that on Gomer Pyle?)

[Twist_U_Up]

19. I beg to differ

the republicans haven`t won anything major as of late. I mean as far back to at least 2000.

they control the voting machines

who knows what the numbers really look like.

how wide spread are these phoney elections ?

until we get our elections back red state , blue state just doesn`t matter

http://www.electionfraud2004.org/presentation/index.html

are you pissed off enough yet ?

[TwilightZone]

21. How do you explain the states that don't use voting machines?

Fraud doesn't account for everything, and pardon my candor, but we need to stop using it as an excuse to not make progress elsewhere.

Republicans don't need fraud in states like Nebraska. When state legislators get nearly 90% of the vote in local, hand counted paper ballot elections, it's obvious that something else is in play.

Yes, it exists and yes, it is prevalent, but until we stop hiding behind it, we're never going to take back our government. We ARE losing voters and we ARE losing local and state elections, and fraud is not the sole reason.

[eggman67]

24. Bingo!

As long as Diebold is a convienient excuse, the losses will be self perpetuating.

The script goes:

Oh, we lost!

No, we won, but the election was stolen. Most VOTING Americans agree with us.

Oh, then we shouldn't modertate our position then we should move farther to the left.

I sincerely hope and pray for the end of BBV, not to expose fraud but to expose the lack thereof!

That way the Dems can lose an election on merit and realize they needs to come back to the rest of us.

Flame away.

[Clark2008]

4. We also have to run a candidate that isn't either

wishy-washy on the issues (red staters like decisiveness - or, at least, the perception of decisiveness) and we can't run a candidate who cannot relate to them on any level.

We need to run a populist, not a DLCer or senator with baggage.

[TwilightZone]

14. Honestly, I think a populist would have a hard time out here, unless...

the populism was very well couched in moderate stances on some of the hot-button issues.

(Edit: I'm not condoning doing this - it's that I think it's likely the only way a populist could make inroads out here.)

But, you're definitely dead-on regarding decisiveness. You can be fatally wrong, but as long as you're decisive, they still respect you.

Typical: Bush may be completely wrong about everything and his actions may have killed thousands of our soldiers, but dammit, he believes in what he says!

Note: that kind of thinking/statement usually leads to me emit a primal scream of frustration. Or make me want to run around, yell, and waive my arms like Kevin in Home Alone.

[Roland99]

6. The GOP has a well-oiled machine that greatly utilizes local media.

Just read through their memos and such that have been leaked as of late.

They bombard local media with their opinions and people acting like innocent, concerned citizens when, in reality, they are shills.

[StayOutTheBushes]

13. The easiest way would be to run a republican.

[TwilightZone]

15. While I suspect that that was intended as sarcasm, it's unfortunately

pretty accurate.

The Dems who've won out here in recent years - Ben Nelson, Stephanie Herseth, etc. - all ran as moderates if not a bit right-of-center.

Ben is, of course, one of DUs "favorite" DINOs.

[OhioBlue]

16. IMHO

I live in a bit of a "purple" State. But, I live in a red-rural area. When someone I know states why they are republican, it is usually "I'm for less government and lower taxes". The right has successfully painted the Dems as the tax and spend party of big government. Even the social issues are trumped for these people by that fact. You can argue that * increased the size of Government, but all they remember is that $300 refund check that they got. (the actual "tax cuts" didn't really amount to a helofalot for most people I know) With Clinton balancing the budget and * running up record deficits, I would think that some would see that the current Dems and Repubs do not fit that stereotype. Sure * cut taxes, but he is leaving us in such a fiscal disaster, that someone will have to raise taxes. I really think the populist message would do a great deal with the "kinda" Republicans that I know. (Obviously not the hard core Repukes).

[Servant]

17. Extremely Easy

Here is some advice for the Democratic Party.

Pretty simple, steal the issue of Guns right out of the Republican's hands. Getting yourself on video and picture going hunting like all Gun owners really want is to be able to hunt is stupid, pathetic, and it works against the Democrats. There is a massive clump of single-issue voters and incredibly well organized and powerful lobbies that are ripe for the picking but nobody is really picking them. They, I should say we as I am one of them want full acknowledgement of the right to bear arms and the important purpose of such a right on an individual and national level. The Republicans don't really do this and it is pretty easy to paint the Democrats as anti-gun (They invite it really) and so they become the party for Gun owners even though they aren't as pro-gun as most would like to think.

The Democrats have an opportunity to completely take this taken-for-granted advantage that the Republicans have. Get some balls and cut out the greatest weakness that the Democratic Party has. Bring those Theocratic Repubs to their knees by saying "We believe in the right to bear arms so as to allow the people the ability to defend themselves and to insure that this country is always free and sovereign."

Good god, the shock that would be felt around the country would be amazing. Gun-grabbers would whine a bit but they certainly aren't going to vote for the Republicans, and after passing out from the shock, the almighty behemoth that is the Gun-rights enthusiasts and their powerful lobbies would be slavering at the jowls to propel the Democrats to power. With a little reluctance, sure, because most of us don't like the Socialistic trends the Democrats have, but such an incredible opportunity would not be passed up.

How does 55, 60, 65 percent of the National vote sound? You like that? You want that? Then get a Shotgun for Burglars, a Handgun for Muggers, and a Service Rifle along with anti-tank and air weapons for Tyranny.

[eggman67]

25. I'm with ya

I don't even own a gun. I wouldn't know what to do with one, but I fully support the 2nd Amendment. The Reps don't have to be PRO gun as long as the Dems continue to be ANTI-gun.

[calimary]

28. This is actually a VERY good idea.

Besides, let's not forget what that Second Amendment calls for: A WELL-REGULATED (HELLO? WELL-REGULATED) militia.

And BTW - eggman - Welcome to DU!

[Servant]

22. Illegal Immigration Too

There is an issue that can grab Red States, most especially ones that are also border states. Just have a Democratic candidate run on the promise of mobilizing the National Guard to shut down illegal immigration on the border and you will get lots of normally Republican votes along with fracturing within the Republican party.

[eggman67]

26. I agree here as well

but whatever Dem does this risks losing the open-borders crowd. The Reps know this too, which is why they're not taking a stronger stand against it.

[calimary]

29. Welcome to DU, Servant!

This is an intriguing idea, too, especially if one can stress that THIS type of thing is where we need to deploy the National Guard. NOT in a place like Iraq - where they can actually protect us and do something productive, rather than being used to create more people who hate us.