#especially educating rural voters

[weremuttz]

I'm less on team "what if more people voted" more "what if uninformed voters stayed the hell home."

The fact that so many people were googling in their booths "did joe biden drop out." The fact that so many progressive bills passed despite the advertisement campaigns against them in the same areas by the same margins that trump won. There were a lot of people this election cycle who checked the fuck out and voted based on name recognition. So many people who vote republican down the ballot out of ignorance, not because they align with those beliefs.

It reminds me of when my hometown had someone on the ballot who DID NOT LEGALLY EXIST because their name was first on the primary ballot, and people just voted for them because their name was listed first. (Guess who was listed first on most ballots....?)

Its still as useless as any other "what if," but still. More realistic than blaming people who didn't vote.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Eric Levitz at Vox:

When Vice President Kamala Harris chose Tim Walz as her running mate, many pundits lamented her decision. In their view, the Democratic nominee should have chosen a vice presidential candidate who could mitigate her liabilities, and balance out her party’s ticket — such as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

After all, Harris had been a liberal senator from one of America’s most left-wing states and then had run an exceedingly progressive primary campaign in 2020. To win over swing-state undecideds, she needed to demonstrate her independence from her party’s most radical elements. And selecting the popular governor of a purple state — who had defied the Democratic activist base on education policy and Israel’s war in Gaza— would do just that. Walz, in this account, was just another liberal darling: As Minnesota governor, he had enacted a litany of progressive policies, including restoring the voting rights of ex-felons and creating a refuge program for trans people denied gender-affirming care in other states. Picking Walz might thrill the subset of Americans who would vote for Harris even if she burned an American flag on live TV and lit a blunt with its flames. But it would do nothing to reassure those who heard two words they did not like in the phrase, “California liberal.”

But there is more than one way to balance a ticket. Or so Harris’s team believes, if the third night of the Democratic National Convention is any guide. On Wednesday night, Democrats used Walz’s nomination to associate their party with rural American culture and small-c conservative moral sentiments, while remaining true to a broadly progressive agenda. Walz may not be especially distinct from Harris ideologically. But he is quite different demographically and symbolically. Harris is the half-Jamaican, half-Indian daughter of immigrant college professors who grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. Walz was born into a family whose roots in the United States went back to the 1800s, and raised in a Nebraska town of 400, where ethnic diversity largely consisted of several different flavors of Midwestern white (Walz himself is of German, Irish, Swedish, and Luxembourgish descent). Harris is an effortlessly cool veteran of red carpets. Walz is a dad joke that has attained corporal form.

In her person and biography, Harris represents the America that has benefited unequivocally from the transformations of the past half-century — the cosmopolitan, multicultural nation that has greeted the advance of racial and gender equality with relief, and the knowledge economy that’s taken to globalization with relish. Walz, by contrast, was shaped by the America that feels more at home in the world of yesterday, at least as it is nostalgically misremembered — a world where moral intuitions felt more stable, rural economies seemed more healthy, and the American elite looked more familiar; the America that put Donald Trump in the Oval Office, in other words. Or at least, the Harris campaign has chosen to associate Walz with all of that America’s iconography, attempting to make it feel as included in the Democratic coalition as possible — without actually ceding much ground to conservative policy preferences. The introduction to Walz’s speech Wednesday night looked like it could have been scripted by a chatbot asked to generate the antithesis of a “San Francisco liberal.” A video montage celebrated Walz’s diligent work on his family farm growing up, his service in the US military, skills as a marksman, and — above all — success as a football coach. Democrats leaned especially hard on that last, most American item on Walz’s resume. Just before the party’s vice presidential nominee took the mic, a group of his former players decked out in their gridiron garments marched on stage to a fight song (not to be confused with “Fight Song”).

[...] There is some basis for believing that Democrats might be able to win over a small but significant fraction of Republican-leaning independents by wrapping center-left policies in conservative packaging. Some political scientists have found that when moderate and conservative voters are presented with a progressive, Democratic economic policy idea — that is justified on the grounds that it will help uphold “the values and traditions that were handed down to us: hard work, loyalty to our country and the freedom to forge your own path” — some do respond favorably (as do liberal voters, who take no offense at such abstract, traditionalist pieties). Whether Walz tying himself to rural American symbology — or Harris tying herself to “Coach Walz” — will be enough to blunt Trump’s attacks on the Democratic nominee’s supposed “communism” remains to be seen. But the Democratic ticket is at least trying to make right-leaning Midwesterners feel like they belong (even if they do not think like Democrats do).

Tim Walz’s DNC speech last night reflects a broader trend of Democrats reclaiming freedom and patriotism while also selling its liberal agenda. #DNC2024 #HarrisWalz2024

See Also:

HuffPost: With Kamala Harris, It’s Cool For Liberals To Be Patriotic Again

[harriswalz4usabybr]

These are four of the surrogates that we plan to lean on heavily during the campaign. We’ve assigned surrogates to various regions and marked them as main or back-up, but both will be leaned on in ways that speaks to the strengths of the surrogate.

Plains (KS, MO, NE, SD, ND)

Governor Laura Kelly—an unapologetic middle of the road governor who has focused on education, healthcare, and fiscal responsibility. Her pragmatic approach to governance and her success in a traditionally conservative state align with the Harris-Walz campaign’s message of inclusivity and progress. Kelly’s ability to connect with rural and suburban voters makes her a key surrogate in the Plains region, helping to broaden the campaign’s appeal.

Middle America (KY, WV, OH, TN, AR)

Main: Governor Andy Beshear—a proven leader with demonstrated strong leadership on healthcare, education, and economic development. His commitment to expanding access to healthcare, especially in rural areas, aligns closely with the Harris-Walz campaign’s priorities. Beshear’s ability to win in a red state and his focus on unity and progress make him a crucial ally in appealing to moderate and undecided voters across Middle America.

Back-up: TN State Representative Justin Jones—a passionate advocate for social justice, criminal justice reform, and civil rights. Justin Jones has become a prominent figure in Tennessee politics. His activism and dedication to fighting systemic racism and inequality resonate with the campaign’s vision for a more just America. Jones’ grassroots appeal and connection with younger, diverse voters make him a vital surrogate, particularly in mobilizing support in Tennessee and other southern states.

Back-up: Former Vice President Al Gore—a Nobel laureate and global environmental leader, Al Gore brings unparalleled expertise and credibility to our campaign on climate change. His lifelong commitment to environmental protection and his ability to connect with both national and international audiences strengthen the campaign’s platform on sustainability. Gore’s experience and recognition make him a powerful voice in mobilizing voters who prioritize environmental issues.

[racefortheironthrone]

So would you say you're somebody that believes Boston, Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, Honolulu, Boise, Little Rock, Indianapolis, Providence, Des Moines, Cheyenne, Jackson MS, Charleston WV, Columbus OH, Columbia SC, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City (yes I try to check which state capitals were also their state's largest city) is the better model for a state capital? Largest population isn't the sole criteria about New York since also it's the state's business hub and arts & entertainment hub too.

Yes. I think it's better on democratic principles:

it allows the largest number of state residents (especially poorer and working-class residents) to directly lobby, petition, or protest their government in the same city where they live - rather than having to take a long trip.

likewise, when it comes to state legislators, it hopefully allows the largest number to come from the ranks of the poor and the working-class, because they don't have to bear the increased burdens of commuting or establishing two residences.

similarly, even for voters and legislators who come from outside the city, choosing the largest city for the capital generally means better transportation network connections, which makes for an easier commute.

finally, it hopefully means that by making the problems of the biggest city the problems of the state government when it comes to stuff like transportation, housing, education, public utilities and services, public safety, etc. that there's more of an incentive to do something about them.

Also, I think the historic reasons for state capitals which weren't the extant largest city at time of statehood usually boil down to rural dislike of the big city, which I don't consider a valid reason for important constitutional decisions.

[erebusvincent]

The reception has been warm and cuddly from much of the media. But Tim Walz is not your dad. He's not your handyman. He's not even necessarily that pragmatic of a pick for Harris, who seems to be telegraphing ideological preferences—bigger government with higher taxes and a more expansive welfare state, as well as supplying an olive branch to the progressive far-left. Embracing a more moderate swing-stater like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro might have been a more pragmatic choice.

"My biggest worry about the discourse is that people mash together a few things that are true—Minnesota is in the Midwest, Walz represented a rural district, Walz has a kind of gruff white guy manner—into a false impression that Tim Walz's gruff white guy manner has made him popular in the rural Midwest despite conventional liberal politics," writes Matthew Yglesias at Slow Boring. "The actual story is that Minnesota is a better-educated, more urban, and more liberal state than Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, so a conventional liberal can do well there without over-performing in the rural Midwest."

The perception of Walz as a folksy Midwestern dad, especially when juxtaposed with Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) (whom Walz branded weird, leading to a strange news cycle in which other Democrats kept hopping aboard the bandwagon), is rather titillating to much of the coastal elite news media. The question is whether that perception will actually be shared by swing-state voters.

[mariacallous]

Over the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath, labor shortages have garnered considerable attention, including among public school teachers. Nationwide, the teacher shortage exceeds 55,000 unfilled positions, with nearly five times as many positions held by underqualified candidates. These gaps have been generated, in part, by increased pandemic-era teacher turnover and a 35% enrollment decline in traditional university teacher preparation programs in the decade preceding the pandemic. Meanwhile, interest, prestige, and satisfaction related to the teaching profession have reached 50-year lows.

In response, individual states and the federal government have proposed and enacted various policies to strengthen the teacher workforce. These policies vary widely in scope, encompassing both financial interventions (e.g., teacher pay, loan forgiveness) and non-pecuniary policies around teacher working conditions. While debate over the depths and distribution of the teacher shortage continues, public opinion of enacted and mooted policy approaches varies widely. In this context, improved understanding of public support may inform voter-conscious policymaking, especially in contexts where the effects of policies intended to attract teachers may extend beyond school walls and in instances where policy enactment requires direct voter approval.

To explore public sentiment concerning several teacher recruitment and retention policies, we fielded four questions on the fall 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CES) surveys, which were administered to a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults. While many respondents support the proposed strategies, including teacher bonuses, grants, loan forgiveness, and shortened school weeks, significant partisan differences remain evident.

Public opinion in a partisan era

Policies to improve teacher recruitment and retention vary in scope; some specifically target teachers while others focus on broader economic incentives. We posed four survey questions capturing support for the following policies: 1) Expanding the federal Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant from $4,000 to $8,000; 2) Accelerating federal loan forgiveness programs (e.g., the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, the Teacher Loan Forgiveness Program, Perkins Loan Cancellation); 3) Enacting permanent four-day school weeks (4DSWs); 4) Distributing one-time teacher bonuses between $1,000 and $5,000.

The first two proposals focus on potential federal policies to recruit and retain teachers (and broader loan relief objectives) while the latter two proposals focus on state and district approaches to teacher labor markets, primarily addressing teacher retention.

Though the two federal policies may not be predicated directly on their public support, both have garnered significant national debate; the doubling of the TEACH grant stalled through President Biden’s American Families Plan proposal while loan forgiveness remains mired in long-term legal proceedings. Conversely, state and local policies often require direct voter support, either through local school board elections or referenda. Four-day school week policies have grown rapidly, primarily in rural locales, though recent evidence indicates largely negative impacts on student academic outcomes, while questions about their effects on parents, families, and communities remain. Teacher grants and bonuses have proliferated through COVID-19 federal relief funds, a revenue source soon due to expire.

While the efficacy of these policies to stabilize teacher labor markets may vary, our focus lies not in assessing their effectiveness but rather in documenting their public support to inform the feasibility of their enactment and sustainability through public buy-in. The pertinent portions of the CES surveys—which we partnered with YouGov to administer to a national stratified sample of approximately 1,000 adults—queried respondents on their support and opposition to these policies, also collecting their demographic characteristics (e.g., race, income, employment status), and political ideology, factors previously linked to policy support. Each question was contextualized for respondents as a potential tool to improve teacher recruitment and retention.

Polarization and partisanship frequently predict policy preferences, eclipsing demographic factors like age, race, and ethnicity, and even material self-interest. Combined with rhetoric from political leaders, partisanship can lead voters to oppose policies from which they stand to benefit. In our increasingly polarized political environment, Americans often view members of the other political party with distrust, which can lead voters to oppose policies based on political endorsements and to impede goals of the other political party. Thus, we expect partisanship to influence respondents’ preferences regarding education policy, particularly on politicized issues.

Contemporary public opinion on teacher shortage policies

On the one hand, each policy proposal garnered at least a plurality of public support. One-time bonuses (63.6%) and grants to teach in high-need schools (59.4%) were most popular; expanded loan forgiveness (47.3%) and permanent 4DSWs (40.7%) received more limited support (see Figure 1). In addition, support for each policy outstripped opposition by between 10 (4DSWs) to as many as 50 percentage points (one-time bonuses); between two and three in 10 respondents remained unsure of their support for each policy.

On the other hand, significant partisan variation underlies this support. Whereas most liberals support enacting each tactic (between 59.1% and 87.6%), only a plurality of conservatives supported one-time bonuses and a majority disapproved of the remaining strategies (see Figure 2). In fact, only slightly more than one in four conservatives indicated support for expanded loan forgiveness (26.0%) and 4DSWs (27.4%).

Only a few additional characteristics beyond partisanship predicted respondent preferences. Racial minority respondents and those holding a bachelor’s degree each indicated greater support for grants to teach in high-need schools. Additional characteristics like family income, gender, employment status, urbanicity, and age rarely, if ever, predicted policy preferences.

Situating our findings

Recently, scholars have explored partisan sorting in education, showing increasing polarization in education-focused topics, including in familiar debates concerning Common Core State Standards, public school quality, and education spending. Our findings showing partisan differences in support for these policy ideas are not entirely surprising, as some topics in education policy have become well-publicized, polarizing hot-button issues (e.g., ESAs, COVID-19 protection measures, book content, instruction discussing sex, gender orientation, and race and ethnicity).

Republican trust in institutions has been declining for several years. A summer 2023 Gallup poll shows a 34-point partisan gap in confidence in public schools, second only to the gap in confidence in the presidency. Affective partisanship and rhetoric from Republican elites also seems to have impacted Republican views of higher education. For example, a Pew Research Center survey illustrates a rapid decline in the number of Republicans who believe higher education has a positive effect “on the way things are going in the country,” declining from more than half in 2015 to only one in three in 2019. We find that these polarized views impact support for policy issues in education that have yet to feature in the so-called culture wars.

Teacher salaries: The annual Education Next Survey explores many hot-button education-focused topics ranging from perceptions of school quality to preferences for the enactment of new policies and practices. In 2022, responses to queries regarding the trajectory of teacher salaries varied widely by partisan ideology, with 70% of Democrats versus 46% of Republicans generally supporting salary increases.

The cost of education: Loan forgiveness and free two- and four-year college: Consistent with our findings, other survey results regarding loan relief showed a significant partisan divide. While 47% of Americans support some federal loan forgiveness, results from the Quinnipiac University Poll indicate a large partisan divide, with 88% of Democrats indicating approval and 81% of Republicans signaling disapproval. Similar partisan differences emerged in EdNext’s questions regarding free two- and four-year higher education, with Democrats indicating much stronger support (84% and 80%) than Republicans (44% and 36%).

Four-day school weeks: Though we found the least support for 4DSW policies (40.7%), the PDK International Poll recently indicated 53% support 4DSWs, up from 25% two decades ago. The PDK poll motivated 4DSWs with district cost savings whereas our question prioritized teacher recruitment and retention, which district leaders now typically cite as a primary objective of the policy and teachers value as a job perk.

The 2023-24 school year and beyond

As students begin the 2023-24 school year, many will return to schools either under-staffed or staffed, in part, by underqualified teachers, making post-pandemic academic recovery more challenging. Though we find a plurality of adults support a range of teacher recruitment and retention policies, even seemingly politically neutral strategies to address teacher shortages may now court a partisan divide similar to other issues in contemporary education policy, one which may feature prominently in upcoming elections. As a result, the feasibility of implementing local policies like 4DSWs and one-time teacher bonuses may hinge on the direction of local partisanship, while federal policies like loan relief may continue to languish with single-party support.

[science-criticaltheory]

Why so many people voted for Trump − 5 things to understand about MAGA supporters’ thinking - Alex Hinton

For many people, especially those leaning left, Donald Trump’s disqualifications to be president seem obvious. Why did so many people vote for Trump again, they wonder, and how did he win not just the Electoral College vote this time but the popular vote as well?

Trump’s critics cite his two impeachments, multiple criminal indictments at the state and federal levels and a felony conviction as evidence that he is unfit to be president again. Opponents also say that Trump is a threat to democracy, a misogynist, racist, a serial liar and a rapist.

About 78% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independent voters say that Trump broke the law when he allegedly tried to overturn the 2020 election results. But less than half of Republicans think he did anything wrong.

I am an anthropologist of peace and conflict, and I have been studying what I call the Trumpiverse since 2015, when Trump descended a golden escalator and announced his candidacy for president. I later wrote a related book in 2021, called “It Can Happen Here.”

More recently, I have been examining toxic polarization – and ways to stop it. Many efforts to reduce people’s polarized views begin with an injunction: Listen and understand.

Why did people vote for Trump?

To this end, I have attended Trump rallies, populist and nonpartisan events and meetings where Democrats and Republicans connect and talk. Along the way, I have spoken with Trump supporters ranging from the Make America Great Again, or MAGA, faithful to moderate “hold the nose and vote for him” conservatives.

And indeed, many on the left fail to understand who Trump voters are and how they vary. Trump’s base cannot simply be dismissed as racist “deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton famously said in 2016, or as country bumpkins in red MAGA hats. Trump voters trend older, white, rural, religious and less educated. But they include other groups, including Latinos and male voters.

Many people have thoughtful reasons for voting for Trump, even if their reasoning – as is also true for those on the left – is often inflamed by populist polarizers and media platforms.

Here are five key lines of reasoning that, in varying combinations, informed the choices of Trump voters.

1. Media distortion

Where those on the left see Trump’s many failings, those on the right may see what some political observers call Trump Derangement Syndrome, sometimes simply called TDS.

According to this argument, the left-leaning media dissects Trump’s every word, and the media then distorts what he says. I have found that some Trump supporters think that people who feed too much on this allegedly biased media diet can get TDS and develop a passionate, perhaps illogical dislike of Trump.

I have also heard hardcore Trump supporters argue, with no evidence, that “fake news” media outlets, like CNN, are part of a larger deep state plot of the federal government to upend the will of the people. This plot, according to those who propagate it, includes not just leftists, government bureaucrats and people who claim to be Republicans but really aren’t, but also people in law enforcement.

Some Trump supporters also see merit in his contention that he is being wrongly persecuted, just as some see the Jan. 6 defendants being persecuted.

2. Bread on the table, money in the bank

“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

For many Trump voters, the answer to Ronald Reagan’s famous question is clear: “No.”

They accurately remember Trump’s term as one of tax cuts, economic growth and stock market highs.

It is true that overall employment numbers and average pay went up under President Joe Biden. But for some Trump supporters, that economic boost pales in comparison to the massive surge in inflation during Biden’s term, with prices rising almost 20%. While the inflation rate has recently abated, prices remain high – as voters are reminded every day at the grocery store.

At the end of the 2024 campaign, polls showed Trump with a strong lead over Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris on how to handle the economy. The economy was a top concern for voters, especially Republicans, and ultimately drove many voters to Trump.

3. A border invasion

Another reason some Americans voted for Trump: immigration.

Like inflation, the number of people illegally crossing the border soared under Biden.

This massive influx of “illegal aliens,” as Trump calls them, dropped to its lowest level in four years in July 2024. This happened after the Biden administration made it harder for immigrants to apply for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, a policy measure that is in line with many Republicans’ approach.

In 2022, a poll found 7 out of 10 Republicans worried that “open borders” were part of a Democratic plot to expand liberals’ power by replacing conservative white people with nonwhite foreigners.

Trump played into some people’s mostly false concerns that immigrants living illegally in the U.S. are freeloaders and won’t assimilate, as illustrated by his untrue September 2024 allegations that immigrants were eating pets in Ohio.

In 2022, 82% of Republicans said they viewed immigration as a “very important” issue. Trump continues to tout his proposed solution, which includes shutting the border, building a wall and deporting 11 million immigrants who are living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

4. A proven record

Beyond the economy and immigration, some Trump voters simply compared the records of Trump and the Biden-Harris administration and found that the tally tilted firmly toward Trump.

There were no new wars under Trump. Biden-Harris, in contrast, have been saddled with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip. Trump supporters’ perception is that American taxpayers foot a large portion of the bill, even though other countries are also giving money to Ukraine, and Israel is actually buying weapons from the U.S.

I have found that Trump supporters also think he is better suited to deal with the rising power and threat of China. Finally, abortion opponents believe he delivered by appointing Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

5. The MAGA bull in a china shop

While some Harris supporters lamented Trump’s destruction of democracy and decency in politics, I have found that Trump voters see a charismatic MAGA bull in a china shop.

His supporters wanted Trump elected precisely because he is an unrelenting pugilist, or a fighter – as he showed when he raised a fist after the July assassination attempt against him.

Some in the Trumpiverse even view him as savior who will rescue the U.S. from a “radical left” apocalypse.

For Trump stalwarts, MAGA is not simply a slogan. It is a movement to save an America that is on the brink of failure.

[thejackhopkins]

Empowering Missouri: Erik Richardsons Vision for Change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iFRV6pztg How can one person make a difference in a seemingly unwinnable political race? Discover the compelling journey of Erik Richardson, a Democratic nominee from Missouri, as he shares his heartfelt motivations for stepping into the political arena. With a rich background in education and rural economic development, Erik sheds light on the critical issues facing rural communities—from the decline of healthcare to the challenges of public education and the scarcity of childcare. His insights offer a fresh perspective on the power of proactive political leadership and the importance of running for office, even in predominantly red districts. Erik's story is a testament to the multifaceted victories that come from engaging in local politics. We explore how his campaign efforts have increased voter registration, fostered a sense of community, and instilled hope in marginalized groups who often feel isolated. Erik passionately discusses the personal courage required to advocate for change and the broader social impacts of visibility and representation. Drawing parallels to other social movements, he highlights how challenging stereotypes can promote broader acceptance and understanding in schools, the military, and beyond. In addition to his political aspirations, Erik emphasizes the value of mentorship and resource connectivity in empowering individuals, especially women and veterans, to succeed in business. He talks about the tangible actions that make a significant impact on people's lives, such as hosting workshops and providing follow-up support. Erik's dedication to lifting up fellow candidates and supporting local political campaigns underscores his commitment to community engagement and educational outreach. Tune in to hear more about Erik’s inspiring vision and how you can support his journey to bring meaningful change to rural Missouri. Twitter/X: @Richardson4MO Support the show (https://ift.tt/q0jTIv7) via Jack Hopkins https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu4mm8MxCLvehI-6tEXEnnA October 06, 2024 at 05:52AM

[ledenews]

Storch: The Challenge of Voter Turnout in West Virginia: A Call to Action

Our beloved West Virginia is a state with a rich history and resilient residents, but the state faces an ongoing and troubling challenge, low voter turnout. Despite the fundamental importance of voting in a democratic society, many West Virginians, unfortunately, do not exercise their right. This is not new, and the phenomenon has significant implications for the state’s governance, policy-making, and representation on all levels. If turnout were to be higher, would this change? Voter turnout has been lower than the national average, historically, for many election cycles. In the 2020 election, the country’s last presidential election, while the country saw a turnout of approximately 66 percent, West Virginia’s turnout rate was only around 57 percent. This disparity becomes more pronounced during mid-term and local elections when voter turnout and engagement often drops to dismal levels. Understanding the reasons behind this trend is crucial for addressing and reversing this behavior. Several socioeconomic factors contribute to low voter turnout in West Virginia. The state has one of the highest poverty rates in the country, which often correlates with lower levels of political participation. Financial instability can lead to a focus on immediate survival rather than civic engagement. Additionally, many West Virginians work in industries with demanding schedules, such as coal mining and service jobs, which can make it challenging to vote on election day. However, when voters avail themselves to early voting, this is less of an issue. Educational attainment is another significant factor in voter apathy. Studies have consistently shown that individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to vote. In West Virginia, where educational attainment levels are lower than the national average, reduced voter participation is also lower. Efforts to increase educational opportunities and awareness about the importance of voting could help with this issue. The legislature has taken strides to improve and increase educational attainment with Senate Bill 1. In an era where economic vitality is so closely tied to a skilled and educated workforce, Senate Bill 1 was a pivotal effort aimed at reshaping the state’s educational landscape. Through this bill, no resident is bound to financial debt to pursue an education. Every West Virginian has the opportunity to further their education, if they wish to do so, to contribute to the state’s economy and pursue a better life for their family. This can help with keeping residents politically involved.    However, political disillusionment and apathy are also prevalent among West Virginia voters. Many feel their vote does not matter or the political system is rigged in favor or elites. This sentiment is exacerbated by a perceived lack of responsiveness from elected officials, who are often seen as out of touch with the needs and concerns of ordinary citizens, a factor many believe to be a testimony to the recent primary results. In Wheeling, however, time and again, voters have seen firsthand just how much each vote counts. Rebuilding trust in the political process is essential for increasing voter turnout. Logistical challenges further hinder voter turnout. West Virginia’s rugged terrain and rural nature can make accessing polling places difficult, especially for those without reliable transportation. While absentee voting, mail-in voting, and early voting options are all widely available across the state, they are not widely utilized and, in some cases, trusted and understood. Making these options known to be safe and streamlining the voting process, making sure it is accessible to all regardless of location is vital to increasing turnout. The challenge of voter turnout in our Mountain State is not insurmountable. By starting with understanding the underlying causes and implementing targeted solutions, the state can create a more engaged and active electorate. Voting is not just a right but also can be a powerful tool for shaping the future for our beautiful state. It is up to all of us, the citizens, community leaders, and elected officials, to ensure that this tool is used to its full potential. Encouraging greater voter turnout and participation in West Virginia is not just about increasing numbers. It’s about fostering a more vibrant, representative, and responsive democracy. Let’s rise up, accept this challenge, and make every voice heard. Read the full article

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jess Piper at The View From Rural Missouri:

When I first moved to Missouri, I taught at a school in Kansas City. I introduced myself for the first time to a co-worker, and she asked where I was from; I told her Arkansas. I didn’t specify a town because no one has heard of Altus, AR. She said, “What’s it like moving to a big city?” She assumed I was from a small town because I was from Arkansas. I laughed and asked her if she’d ever heard of Little Rock or any town in Northwest Arkansas? They are pretty big cities and all are in Arkansas.

To be clear, I was not offended. I am rural, but I have noticed over the years that folks confuse GOP-dominated states with rural spaces. They aren’t the same. Even the reddest states have blue cities. Even the most regressive of states will have progressive voters. And, rural communities always have Democratic voters. Ask me how I know. I know there has been much written on the vote-against-our-their-self-interest, redneck voter. Something about red hats and diners. Something about guns and racism. A lot of it isn’t nice or even true. I have some thoughts…

Reaching rural voters.

Rural folks aren’t props. You don’t have to pander to us with pickups or jeans or boots, although if you showed up in a pair of Mucks, I’d know you were the real deal. You don’t have to wear a plaid shirt, or drive a flat bed— looking at you, Josh Hawley. You don’t have to use the word “y’all” unless it’s natural. You don’t have to talk down to us like we aren’t educated. You don’t have to ask about crop prices unless you know enough to not embarrass yourself. You don’t have to act any differently with rural people than you would with any other bloc of voters.

[...]

It’s not that difficult to understand rural people. Many of us have been rural all of our lives and we want the same things every other American wants. We are like you in most respects, but we might value physical privacy and a hands-off approach to government a little more — and we don’t mind a long drive to town. Here are a few misconceptions about rural Americans:

We all live on farms. In fact, most of us don’t. Many of us work in ag, but we don’t own big farms. You need generational wealth to buy a farm that you can make a living off of. There is a listing just down the highway from me for 220 acres of tillable ground. No house, no out buildings, no barns. It’s listed at 1.5 million. That’s just the land. Now, go price a combine. You’ll need generational wealth.

We all vote against our self-interest. We often vote for progressive ballot initiatives (hello, legalized weed) so you know that’s not true. However, I will not be able to vote for a State Representative in November. My current Rep has no Democratic opposition. Last cycle, it was me running against him, but I couldn’t afford to run again this cycle. When tallying up Dem voters, it will be easy to write my district off, but we will have no one to vote for. I couldn’t vote in my self-interest if I wanted to.

We are all gun nuts. I mean, a lot of us own guns, but we also use them. They are tools in my house, not accessories to wear to town and never used to intimidate. My kids hunt (we eat what we harvest) and we also use them to protect livestock. It’s also handy if you’re in FFA and enjoy competing in shooting events. P.S. Not all of our kids are in FFA or 4H, but those programs are awesome…especially for young women.

We are all racists. I’m absolutely positive rural America has its share of racists, but guess what? So do the cities. There are Black folks who have lived in rural spaces for generations (shocking!) There are people of all backgrounds who call rural America home, just like every other corner of the US. We have racists, but racism isn’t just contained in rural spaces. It’s an American epidemic, not a rural one.

We are all angry. I recently read a book title about the “angry white rural voter” written by a couple of progressives and my first though was, well, this will help the cause. Yes, there is anger, and if you visit places like my town, you’d see why. We aren’t building, we are razing. We aren’t growing, we are diminishing. The anger isn’t from some pissed off redneck. It’s local folks seeing their way of life dying. Their children moving away and never coming back. It’s not anger…it’s sadness. Yes, many of us could vote better, but back to not having a Democratic nominee…

Here’s what I truly think; the way back to sanity is through rural America and red states. Wyoming has the same amount of Senators as California — why not send money and resources to Wyoming? Or Montana. Or Arkansas. Or Iowa. Or Missouri. Contest every seat on every ballot — even in rural spaces. Especially in rural spaces.

Jess Piper writes yet another home-run piece on rural voters and Democrats: they are in rural areas, even if they are outnumbered and oftentimes don't have a candidate running for such offices.

Hopefully the trend reverses.

[harriswalz4usabybr]

These are four of the surrogates that we plan to lean on heavily during the campaign. We've assigned surrogates to various regions and marked them as main or back-up, but both will be leaned on in ways that speaks to the strengths of the surrogate.

Mid-Atlantic (VA, NC, SC)

Main: US Representative Jim Clyburn—a civil rights icon, particularly in the African American community. His influence was pivotal in securing the Democratic nomination for Joe Biden in 2020, and his support for Harris-Walz will bring crucial credibility and trust to our campaign, especially in South Carolina and among older voters.

Back-up: Governor Roy Cooper—a governor with a proven track record of winning in a battleground state by appealing to both urban and rural voters. His leadership on issues such as Medicaid expansion, public education, and disaster response aligns well with the Harris-Walz platform, making him a valuable surrogate in the critical Mid-Atlantic region.

Deep South (AL, LA, MS, North Florida)

Main: Mayor Randall Woodfin—a vocal advocate for progressive policies, particularly in areas like criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and educational equity. His leadership in a deep-red state highlights the importance of building bridges and pushing for change even in challenging environments, making him a powerful voice for the campaign in the Deep South.

Back-up: Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba—known for his commitment to social justice, economic empowerment, and community-driven governance. His efforts to transform Jackson into a model of progressive policy at the local level make him an ideal advocate for the Harris-Walz vision of inclusive governance and grassroots activism.

[arpov-blog-blog]

...."First, with any large non manufacturing company, the influx of new employees are generally going to trend to younger, more professional, better off, more upwardly mobile employees. Which tends to mean people who tend to lean in a more Democratic, progressive view of politics.

And they’re going to need someplace to live. And since most companies tend to move to larger, more urban areas, that can  be a problem for the GOP. Because, especially if they have or want children, these employees are not going to want to live city center. Which means that they’re more likely to move to the suburbs surrounding the city, or if they can work from home, even the more rural exurbs. And if they’re moving in, that must mean somebody else is moving out, likely the traditional GOP voters who already live there.

But here’s the hidden part that nobody ever thinks about. When a new company opens, especially if it’s in a new building, the younger more liberal employees aren’t the only ones moving in. A new building means things like support staff, cleaners, maintenance crews, and in full service buildings cafeteria and restaurant staff. This is also a magnet for non college educated workers, as well as lower level workers wanting a new career in a safe place. Again, more likely minorities and more Democratic.

But here’s the second hidden demographic, the youth vote. In 2018, following the Parkland high school shooting in Florida, 18-29 voter participation went through the roof, fueled by gun control. They led the charge that gave the Democrats a 40 seat tsunami in the House. In 2020 the numbers were up again, and helped fuel Biden’s run to the White House. In 2022 it surged again, helping to contain what should have been a Democratic wipeout. The analytical survey I saw today showed that in 2022, the 18-29 demographic went 70% for the Democrats. And you can bet they’ll be cack out in force again in 2024. The Democrats are seeding their next generation of voters, and the GOP is turning them away."

[richiebigjoe]

Hello OBIdients! 🇳🇬

Please listen. 🙏

February 6 - 20, 2023

Social media: 30%

Grassroots: 70%

Targets: 50 years old above. 🇳🇬🔑

Active listening and effective communication. 💯👍🔑🇳🇬🌞🖤

It's time to go back to basics.

* Jehova Witness (Door-to-door, person-to-person, village-to-village)🇳🇬. Please be friendly and be kind. 🙏🔑🌞

* Please DO NOT TALK DOWN ON OTHER CANDIDATES OFFLINE (door-to-door) JUST SELL MR PETER OBI AS A UNIFIER AND THE KEY. 🙏🔑🌞

* What you communicate is important but HOW you communicate with them will SAVE Nigeria. 🙏🔑🌞🇳🇬

* Please don't give money to anyone. Just talk to them one-to-one and convince them. 🙏🔑🌞

* Please EDUCATE the people in the rural areas especially the senior citizens about the Labour Party Nigeria Logo and help them understand what constitutes valid and invalid votes.

* This period should be used to EDUCATE and sensitize the electorates about the Logo (Mama, Papa, Pikin). Please tell them to use their index fingers to vote. 🙏🔑🌞

* How you COMMUNICATE with them is VERY important, please be patient, friendly, and encourage them to ask questions.

* Please be kind to registered voters aged 50 years above and help convince them to vote for Mr Peter Obi. 🙏🔑🌞🇳🇬

* We need to go back to our September 2022 strategy Aggressively. Tell the people what Mr Peter Obi would do DIFFERENTLY if elected.

* Aggressively push his achievements as a governor of Anambra State just as we did in September 2022. Help the electorates know he is different from the other candidates. 🙏🔑🌞

* I repeat, people let's go back to the basics now. Jehova Witness style. Smile, make good jokes, ask them questions to make them think critically. Talk less listen more and CONVINCE. DON'T ARGUE 🙏🔑🌞🇳🇬

* Be kind to everyone at this period. Don't get into any unnecessary political arguments with people online and offline. 🙏🔑🌞

* We are almost there, no stopping now, let's keep pushing, leave no one behind, we got this people. Let's get those votes in the bag. 🙏🔑🌞

I hope this helps

Respectfully

🖤

[mariacallous]

Every two years, political campaigns, organizations, and pundits all ask the same question: Will young people turn out to vote? In recent cycles, that answer has been an emphatic yes: Youth ages 18-29, long considered unreliable voters, have turned out at historically high rates. Between the 2014 and 2018 midterms, and between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, youth voter turnout increased by double digits. In 2022, the first election when they made up the entire 18-24 age group, Gen Z voted at a higher rate than any previous generation in its first turn at the ballot.

That’s the good news. The bad news: Young people still vote at much lower rates than older Americans. Moreover, even among youth there are major inequities in turnout by race, education, rurality, and other factors that prevent us from having a truly representative electorate. In 2022, for example, the estimated voter turnout of Black (15%) and Latino (14%) youth was nearly 10 percentage points lower than that of youth overall. There was also a nearly 30-point gap between the voter turnout of youth with a Bachelor’s degree and those with a high school diploma but no college experience.

These systemic deficiencies in our democracy require equally structural shifts in how we prepare young people to participate in democracy. At the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University, we’ve spent two decades studying various approaches to expanding the electorate and promoting inclusive civic participation.

CIRCLE research points to a major role for K-12 schools at the intersection of civic education and civic participation—a vision of the nonpartisan civic role of schools that can be met through well-implemented, evidenced-based policies and practices.

When implemented, state statutes can support students’ voter registration and engagement

Policies like automatic voter registration (AVR) and pre-registration have proven somewhat effective at improving youth registration rates. However, without thoughtful and inclusive implementation, they aren’t enough to substantially increase participation. There remains major untapped potential, especially with pre-registration. Schools are positioned to play a key (and nonpartisan) role in this pre-registration work before and after students turn 18.

All states have policies in the books that outline what K-12 schools can, should, and, in some cases, must do related to voter registration and education. These include statutes that mandate the provision of voter registration forms and activities in schools. A handful of states go even further, providing opportunities for young people to take a leadership role in their school or community’s voter registration efforts. Michigan, for example—which we estimate had the highest youth voter turnout in 2022—allows 16- and 17-year-olds to be appointed to the Board of Elections.

The vast majority of states also allow youth under 18 to serve as poll workers. This is an impactful but severely underutilized opportunity to engage young people in the electoral process while also serving their communities. Teachers and school leaders have an essential role to play here, too, by promoting and supporting this work with their students.

Nonpartisan teaching about elections can promote participation

Schools can also support nonpartisan voter education much more directly. Participation in democratic processes requires working knowledge, skills, and dispositions that must be learned—which means they must also be taught. CIRCLE research shows that nonpartisan instruction about elections, especially about the voting process itself, is effective but often sorely lacking.

Before the most recent presidential election, we asked young people whether they had been encouraged and/or taught how to vote while in high school. Those who said they remembered those educational experiences were more interested in the 2020 election, more knowledgeable about the voting process, and more likely to engage in other civic activities (though it’s unclear if this was a causal effect of their high school instruction).

But a third of youth said they had not been encouraged to vote in school, and half said they had not been taught how. More recent data also underscores that a lack of information about the voting process is still a major problem.

In CIRCLE’s 2022 survey, among youth who didn’t vote, more than one in five said they did not have enough information. Among youth who didn’t register to vote, 13% said it was because they didn’t know how to do it or had a problem with the forms. Young, unregistered Latinos were even more likely (25%) to cite those reasons for not registering—underscoring how disparities in information access might lead to lower participation.

Educators need resources and support to teach equitably about elections. Some of that help can come from coalitions like the Teaching for Democracy Alliance that provide materials and learning opportunities for teachers to engage in this work. The backing of administrators and district leaders is also key, especially as educators continue to face pushback about history and social studies content in schools.

State policymakers can play a role by passing civic education laws that mandate nonpartisan teaching about elections as a normal, expected part of the curriculum, and by ensuring adequate resources for implementation across all schools. That includes allocating funding for teachers’ professional development and for civic learning activities required by standards and legislation. For example, Massachusetts established and funded a Civics Project Trust Fund to assist with training, implementation, and evaluation of its civic education law, especially in school districts with a high rate of disadvantaged students.

Civic education must help youth develop their voice and see their role in democracy

While information is key to supporting youth participation, it’s often not enough to spur voting and broader engagement. This is especially the case among youth from historically marginalized communities and those who, sadly, may not see a role for themselves in our democracy. According to our 2022 survey, only 40% of youth (ages 18-29) said they feel well-qualified to participate in politics. Youth of color, youth ages 18-21, and those without college experience are even less likely to feel qualified.

Schools have a central role in ensuring that all students can develop their voices, build skills like collaborative decision-making, understand how institutions work, and explore different ways they can effect change. Well-implemented civic education policies and standards can advance these aims by mandating the use of evidence-based pedagogies like inquiry-based learning, discussion of current societal issues, and service learning.

Each of these instructional practices create opportunities for young people to speak and act together about the issues facing their communities and to make decisions that impact their experiences in and out of the classroom. CIRCLE’s recent research in Illinois, where middle schools are implementing this type of civic learning, finds these learning experiences are associated with a variety of positive civic outcomes. Notably, it also finds that while this type of civic education is often derided as partisan, it does not politicize students; it is teaching them how to think, not what to think.

Our Illinois research also highlighted the importance of opportunities to build youth voice and confidence outside the classroom. Students who are engaged in extracurriculars, who perceive a positive school climate, and who feel they have a say in their school communities also score better on civic outcomes. Policymakers and practitioners can support educators by improving support for opportunities like extracurricular activities and launching or expanding programs like participatory budgeting in schools that directly involve youth leadership.

A role for policy, practice, and partnership

CIRCLE’s research at the intersection of civic education and engagement highlights the importance of policies that can help grow voters. More so, it underscores the importance of thoughtful and equitable implementation of policies and opportunities so that all youth have access to them and feel supported in enjoying them.

That requires much more than simply having a law in the books—whether it’s a civic education standard or a voter registration statute. It calls for meaningful and supportive partnerships between educators, policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders in communities who have a role to play in ensuring all youth are ready to vote in 2024 and to lead in the decades to come.

[tanadrin]

There’s an argument I’m not not open to, which is that positive aspects of modern democracy depend on to some degree quality of general public education, bc education improves certain hard-to-measure qualities that improve the quality of voters/candidates/civic-mindedness/whatever.

And especially from the vantage of a middle-class person with the usual biases, this makes a kind of sense. The unwashed masses, the hoi polloi, the man on the street--they’re kind of dumb, right? Real agitation for democracy didn’t take off until rising standards of living and state wealth made education more available, right? You don’t want the rural peasantry to be dupes for the reactionaries, do you?

But the more I learn about history the more skeptical I become of this proposition, and not just for abstract “wisdom of crowds” reasons. Most antidemocratic contingencies meant to guard against “populism” in fact turn out to be contingencies to preserve the wealth of landowners specifically: bicameral legislatures exist not because a populist lower house with the universal franchise might be too changeable in the abstract, but specifically because a populist house with the universal franchise might vote for land reform. The “chaos” of “populism” conservative elites fear, when framed in strictly material terms, tends to be the possibility that the general population is not as on board with the idea of a vastly unequal wealth distribution in the country as they are; real “populist” tyranny tends to come from the violent imposition of minority rule!

Framing the general population, of any time or place, as being unfit or unable to participate in government, much less to govern themselves, thus strikes me as more likely to be a post-hoc rationalization for conservative forces looking to preserve their wealth, not cautious advocacy for good government. Yes, many people believe dumb shit; but the broader your democratic electorate, the more likely that 1) any given dumb idea is believed by only a minority of the population (even COVID wackos are like 30% of people at most), 2) the pool is large enough to produce good candidates that can attract support for elected office, and 3) public opinion is likely to be relatively stable in its preferences, since it’s much harder to convince (say) a country of 20 million of something than a narrow electorate of 20,000.

Thus I suspect (but cannot prove) that if you took the peasant population of Germany in the 16th century, expelled the aristocracy from their land, and let them govern themselves with the magic stipulation being somehow imposed that their government had to be maximally democratic, then even those unlettered, 16th-century peasants would produce a pretty good government--certainly no worse than its aristocratic neighbors.

(Where popular political movements have been famously turned toward apparently reactionary ends, it’s often for solid material reasons: the war in the Vendée wasn’t the result of the local population being royalist dupes, it was specifically due to a draft and the imposition of laws that reduced, not improved, the quality of life in that region, which owing to its history and geography had a different relationship to both the nobility and the church than much of the rest of France, and certainly than Paris. The centralizing instincts of the Revolution were bad for many outlying regions of France, and alliance with constitutional royalists and outright reactionaries was strategically useful even if underlying motivations differed.)

[so-i-did-this-thing]

Hi, @kaziusklasterzoroaster ! I never said Missouri is a blue state. I was implying that nowhere in The United States is safe.

Blue states could turn at any moment thanks to a few bad actors inspired by what is being piloted in Red super-majorities - it's especially wild the overreach we're seeing at the court and AG level. And anti-trans bills or executive orders could enact quickly on a national level in a GOP-led federal administration. Not comforting given how close we are to a presidential election.

But, I love your energy to write off the red states as an uneducated, separate country. How progressive! Do you also think those of us who live here (especially those who don't want to move, despite the danger) deserve what we get? Because a lot of folks sure do and love telling that to our faces! 😆

There's a huge density of marginalized people living in red states, did you know that? But who cares, right?

But humor me a moment. Here's a map showing how the majority of Black folks live in the South.

And let's take a look at the density of trans folks - interesting how so many Southern states have a higher density than liberal coastal strongholds like California!

The folks passing this hateful legislation are neither inbred hicks nor stupid. Or even always in the majority. Roughly eight-in-ten Americans say transgender people face at least some discrimination. But gerrymandering and voter suppression are gonna do their things despite public opinion.

This is all a coordinated, national (one could argue international thanks to tactics-swapping with the UK) effort to suppress trans rights as part of a larger scheme to destroy bodily autonomy.

There's emails that prove this coordination is planned rather than uneducated "barbarians" being randomly reactionary. (One of the major players here operates in Idaho, a famous Southern state, as you all know.)

Yes, it's overwhelmingly white Christo-fascism, but it's foolish to assume this is a Southern phenomenon. Or even a rural one -- I can't tell you how many "upstanding" small business owners and Instagram wine moms are the current faces of hate.

With over 400 anti-lgbt bills being proposed or in motion across the country, there's hate to combat in every state, even Blue ones! Have a click around the ACLU's state-by-state breakdown!

But yeah, calling the South a bunch dumb hicks and fantasizing about the burning of and military occupation of cities that also included (and still include) huge concentrations of marginalized people is an amazing strategy, you keep at it, sweetie. I love when Northerners have a boner about the Civil War as if they personally ended slavery and remind us poor Southern folks how backwards we are.

(As a side note, Missouri is a red state, yes. Historically it was the South, but its contemporary identity is more the Midwest. But yeah, let's all piss on Red states, they're irredeemable, amirite?)

Oh, btw, here's a Bug Bunny gif just for you, since Florida is where I currently live (and have lived all my life) and we're also a shit stain on America. Lol, Florida Man!

(Did you know that the Florida Man phenomenon is an artifact of our "Sunshine Laws" that give the public broad access to public records, including arrests & mugshots, and that weird shit happens in every state, it just isn't as visible. And wrt our lack of education -- a lot is due to the phenomenon of rich Blue state conservatives coming to retire here and deprioritizing school funding, which only contributes to the battles over education down here.)

Ha ha, Bugs Bunny, what a wacky little guy.

Anyway, love your helpful input for the cause and reinforcing the myth of both the coastal elite and the North being post-racism/queerphobia! This definitely helps poor trans people, especially those in red states, plan for the escalating genocide! We love being collateral damage! 🥰

(I hope I don't have to make it obvious I agree that Reconstruction was bungled and a huge part of why the United States is how it is, but holy shit, knock off this ignorant, blanket anti-South bullshit. You're only hurting the marginalized people who live here with that attitude.)

------------

THAT OUT OF THE WAY

I am going to re-link my advice for trans folks in Florida, as much of it will apply to what's happening right now in Missouri. The only extra nugget I'd suggest - given the immediate HRT emergency - is for folks on testosterone to consider HRT pellet implants, in case you need something longer lasting and are worried a gel/injectable Rx might expire soon.

And my partner at the end of this post wrote an excellent list of things allies can do to help, even if you're short on cash.

Good luck, help out where you can, and please don't fucking make me post that Bugs Bunny gif ever again.

Missouri AG Just Banned Most Adult Gender Affirming Care In Cruelest Anti-Trans Move Yet

All trans people in the United States need to operate under the assumption that their care could be effectively banned with as little as 2 weeks' notice. Even if you live in a blue state. Even if you are an adult.

This effective ban in Missouri is a shock and if you are affected, you can find some tips in my planning for the bad bills barreling through in Florida.

This is a call to prepare and a caution for anyone seeking an official autism diagnosis -- it is looking more and more that it will be used to harm you.