The "working class whites" narrative vs. Alex Roarty's piece. Major conflation going on here.

In another thread, the reaction to a piece by Alex Roarty suggests some may be conflating 2 completely different arguments. I don't really find anything objectionable with Roarty's article, aside from the silly Nancy Larson quote at the end (as if urbanites and suburbanites aren't "ordinary people&quot . After this year's election, Obama made the point that he had visited a lot of rural towns so as to not lose those towns as badly as he would have if he hadn't visited them (minimizing losses and maximizing gains are both important). The Roarty piece is essentially saying the same thing, along with pointing out 2 common sense ideas:

1) Rural Dems (not all of whom are white) are more likely to vote if the Dems do outreach in their communities (do some advertising and, if not sending the candidate there, at least send some surrogates who have rural experience--Bill Clinton, for instance). Just as Dems do GOTV in blue areas, they need to do GOTV in red areas.

2) Campaign in part on bringing broadband Internet to rural communities. That's a specific, sensible proposal.

That's totally different than the somewhat popular DU narrative about "working class whites" and blue collar workers. That narrative suggests Dems aren't already fighting for *both* economic and social justice. That narrative suggests that Clinton didn't speak enough about economic issues, such as addressing jobs or the rising costs of health insurance. Some even claim she spent more time on "transgender bathrooms." And that's all bullshit. That whole narrative is ridiculous. Clinton's website, her speeches and her debate performances all addressed those economic issues at length and with great substance (to a *much* greater extent than Trump did). Plus, that narrative implies that working class POC don't care about economic issues, which is absurd. And there really is no excuse for supporting Trump.

For tens of millions of Americans, racism, sexism, xenophobia, heterosexism, Christian supremacy and single issues (like abortion) take precedence over everything else. Throughout US history, there's been a white backlash to racial progress (such as the election of Obama and his executive action that produced DACA). There isn't a whole lot Dems can do about that--a sizable portion of the electorate (35+ percent) is simply not reachable, and that's always been the case. Also, that major proponents of the TPP won (with ease) and that the re-election rate of incumbents was even higher than normal suggests a major flaw in the anti-trade/anti-establishment narrative. And let's not lose sight of the fact that tens of millions subscribe to patently false beliefs.

I wrote about all of those things (and more) in my long, link-filled post-election essay.

As for the idea that Obama voters can't be racist, you have much to learn if you engage in such simplistic thinking as that (it's on par with the classic "I have a black friend" defense). You may want to start with this article: "Why Did Some White Obama Voters Go for Trump?"

Let's face it, Clinton was victimized by decades of hate (much of it totally irrational and rooted in sexism and misogyny). The exact same message could win in 2020 so long as the messenger isn't Clinton.

And we can't overlook voter suppression (Shelby County v. Holder decision was devastating). Or the FBI's unprecedented interference. Or the deadful media. And when it comes to House races, we can't overlook gerrymandering as a huge factor.

But, yes, Dems should do more outreach to rural communities, particularly where there are POC. The crux of the message doesn't have to change much. Dems just need to show up in more places.