Political trends and voting patterns are well-known for their volatility over time. West Virginia, a presently firmly conservative state, was once known for being a relatively blue state. In the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton won West Virginia by nearly 15 points. In 2008, current U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, won the gubernatorial election by 43 points as the Democratic nominee. In 2020, former President Trump won the presidential election by nearly 40 points 2020 over President Biden. West Virginia is certainly not the only example of political trends changing over time. Other states like Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio used to be much more favorable to Democratic candidates. Nowadays, these three states are firmly trending to the right. Most political analysts have highlighted these changes in voting patterns. Still, many people don’t necessarily highlight why the Democratic party has seen such backsliding in these states and how Democrats can regain some footing in these regions.
One of the key reasons for the bleeding support of Democrats in states like Missouri, Iowa, West Virginia, and Ohio is heavily influenced by the voting shifts in rural areas in these states and the Midwest. Looking at the voting maps by county in these takes in the 2008 presidential election compared to the 2020 presidential election, one will quickly notice the substantial change in political partisanship in rural counties. For example, in the 2008 presidential election in Ohio, Monroe County, a rural county in southeastern Ohio, voted for Barack Obama by roughly 9 points. In 2020, that same county voted for Donald Trump by roughly 54 points. Similar trends can be observed in rural counties like Belmont County and Jefferson County. However, highlighting the voting trends in these counties won’t provide much insight into why these people have lost trust in the Democratic Party, nor will it offer any insight into how the Democrats can regain their support.
One key reason for the hemorrhaging support of Democrats in rural areas is the usage of populist messaging among many modern-day Republicans, such as Donald Trump. Before 2016, Republicans were often viewed as being more “elite” or “wealthy,” while the Democratic Party was known as the party of the working class or “working people.” This quickly changed in 2016, as former President Trump capitalized on populist messaging by painting himself as a fighter for the “common people” who have been neglected by the “elite.” Trump continued to use this messaging in 2020, and it proved successful in these rural regions, even if many of Trump’s policies were of questionable benefit to the working-class or rural communities. In contrast, the Democrats have quickly seen their perception of being the party of the “working class” dwindle, and their actions often accelerated this trend. Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton used rhetoric that was openly antagonistic to people in these communities, and her overall elitist attitude may have played a role in why she did so poorly in rural regions that, just four years ago, former President Obama did reasonably well in.
Another primary reason for the bleeding support of Democrats in rural regions is the emphasis many Democratic politicians have placed on niche cultural issues. It’s no secret that the rural regions of the United States, including the Midwest, tend to be more culturally conservative than other regions, like major cities and urban centers. I’m not advocating for the Democratic party to completely reverse track on every social position they hold. Policies like supporting gay marriage and supporting marijuana legalization and decriminalization are reasonable policies that the majority of Americans either support or do not emphasize as a key issue that influences their vote. However, specific wedge cultural issues have been occasionally overemphasized by Democratic candidates, particularly concerning transgender-related issues and systemic racism, which many people across the rural Midwest either do not support or do not care about when considering which candidate to vote for, as many rural Midwesterners, particularly in economically challenged regions like Southeastern Ohio, are much more concerned about how they’ll be able to afford basic necessities rather than which candidate is the most inclusive.
Lastly, and possibly the biggest reason for the dwindling support for Democrats in rural regions, is the feeling of neglect many rural communities have felt from Democratic politicians and candidates. I already touched on the antagonistic rhetoric used by some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, that alienated many rural citizens. However, the feeling of neglect reaches beyond antagonistic language and into policies and legislation that, whether directly or indirectly, have substantially harmed rural communities. One clear example would be the passage of NAFTA, designed to promote free trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. The reality of this deal was the rapid erosion of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest and Rust Belt, especially in states like Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia. Modern initiatives and legislation continue to alienate rural voters, such as specific clean energy initiatives. Clean energy legislation has the potential to be both popular and legitimately effective, but the prioritization of solar and wind over other potential options like nuclear energy, alongside the quick transition suggested by some initiatives, are not only unpopular to rural voters but could have severe implications for communities that are built around the coal or oil industry.
If the Democratic Party wants to regain some footing in rural regions, especially in the Midwest, candidates must be willing to change some messaging on both a local and national level. Legislatively, the Democratic Party must reconsider messaging on particularly controversial issues. Supporting some level of abortion protections will not entirely alienate rural voters, but having a consistent position with clear restrictions, such as explicitly opposing abortion in the third trimester except for a select few exceptions and supporting a restriction at some point in the second trimester (such as 18-20 weeks), could show a level of moderation on the topic and will be more in-line with the average voter. Additionally, showing some level of humility on other controversial social issues, such as transgender participation in sports, which is an issue where there is a legitimate argument that transgender women have a distinct advantage in women’s sports, could show the Democrats are willing to acknowledge, recognize, and consider legitimate concerns that culturally moderate to conservative voters may have. The Democrats should also reconsider their plan for clean/renewable energy by acknowledging that it will be very difficult to transition to a fully renewable energy system without potentially significant consequences, and should recognize and allow the continued production of oil and natural gas while prioritizing effective renewable energy sources such as nuclear energy.
From a rhetorical standpoint, there are numerous things that the Democratic Party needs to consider if they want to stop their backsliding in the rural Midwest. The first consideration that would be applicable to both parties is to stop referring to the Midwest as a “flyover” country. This term has been prescribed to the Midwest for a considerable amount of time, and referring to the Midwest with terms like “flyover” country is, understandably, going to make people in these regions – rural, suburban, and urban voters – feel alienated and furthers this feeling of Democratic party as being the party of the elite. Beyond this, the Democratic Party and its candidates must stop referring to Trump voters with harsh and insulting terms, such as “deplorables”. There are undoubtedly individual voters or groups that fall under the umbrella of fascists, but referring to Trump supporters, as a whole, with these terms is further going to alienate these voting blocs, which are particularly pronounced in the rural Midwest.
It will likely be incredibly difficult for Democrats to regain the same level of support in the rural Midwest that Democrats once held in the 1990s and 2000s, but it is certainly not impossible to regain some level of support beyond what the Democrats currently hold. The election of former President Trump in 2016 and 2020 saw a rapid political shift in many regions across the rural Midwest, which could imply some level of political volatility that suggests some rural voters could be open to voting for a Democrat in the future if they can adequately appeal to these voters. As someone who is affiliated with the Democratic Party, I can certainly understand why voters across the rural Midwest no longer trust Democratic candidates. The corporate, inauthentic, and occasionally elitist perception of the modern Democratic Party is generally unappealing to many rural Midwesterners, who often feel left behind and unrepresented by modern-day candidates and desire politicians to speak to them like an average person, not generic talking points and platitudes that sound nearly identical to a rehearsed speech or advertisement.
