Stop Talking to Rural Voters About Issues They Don’t Care About
I worry because the press is reporting that the Democratic agenda, unlike President Obama’s agenda, will be focused on Abortion, Global Warming, Mass Shootings, Civil Rights and Social Justice. This is a 100% urban agenda and are all issues that do not strongly resonate with rural voters in the 8 Electoral College Homesteaded States. This is actively ignoring 30% of the voters who will determine the next president.
Chapter 6 of the book addresses these issues, which are very important to Democratic donors and the Democratic base. Yet these issues never come up and often simply don’t apply to the rural voter in the Electoral College Homesteaded States. Talk about them all you want with the urban voter. Just not so much with the rural voter.
6.1 Mass Shootings Is an Urban Issue —
There has never been a mass shooting on a family farm by a family farmer.
6.2 Global Warming – The Upper Midwest is a Climate Change Haven — Climate change scientists have opined that the upper Midwest, which is almost exactly the 8 Electoral College Homesteaded States, will be a climate change haven and will benefit from climate change
6.3 Social Justice — The homesteading of the 8 Electoral College States happened after the slave trade was abolished and there is no history of slavery in those states. The Electoral College rural voter can’t see how this would possibly apply to them.
6.4 Voting Rights -- Voting rights applies only to the urban voter and to certain disadvantaged voters, almost none of which reside in rural communities of the Electoral College Homesteaded States
6.5 The Abortion Conundrum -- Rural voters tend to be on Bill Clinton’s page, which is that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Once it is, they don’t want to talk about it.
Start Talking About the Issues That Actually Matter to Rural Voters!
Chapter 7 of the book talks about a select few issues that rural voters care about, and a couple of issue that have simply been forced into the national debate for no good reason.
If you are unwilling to talk about the issues that are important to voters, regardless of your position, it is unreasonable to think that a rural voter will vote for you.
• The Ammunition Shortage
The United States is facing an acute ammunition shortage at the moment, due largely to the war in the Ukraine. NATO, Canadian, and U.S. Generals are all warning about this. The war in Israel will only make this shortage worse. We are also trying to arm Taiwan to make it a “porcupine.” Rural America is acutely aware of this because of real life experience trying to buy ammunition – some calibers either aren’t available or are extremely expensive. Your Electoral College voters are very concerned about this. It signals that the U.S. is not ready for the next war. The military and NATO seem to agree.
Rural Talking Points
The ammunition shortage is a very simple problem caused by factors outside of the control of anyone in the United States. This is not a Democratic nor Republican issue and the solution is straightforward. Simply acknowledge the issue. Republicans are talking about this but Democrats are not. Electoral College Voters need to know that they have been heard and to have some assurance that someone in the Executive branch has their eye on the ball. The rest of the answer doesn’t matter that much.
The rest of the answer goes something like this: “Yes, we are very aware of the ammunition shortage. And we are working very closely with our military leaders on this. I think the question you are really asking is whether we will implement the Defense Production Act to increase the supply of ammunition. While this is a possibility, the industry has been ramping up production on its own and we do not think the Act needs to be engaged at this point. And we are already seeing the price of retail ammunition come down. But should it become necessary, we will not hesitate to take whatever action is necessary, including using the Defense Production Act.”
The Backstory
The war in the Ukraine is quickly exhausting the supply of ammunition in the United States, both at the military and consumer levels. While manufacturers are ramping up production, even the U.S. Army has openly complained that they are very short on ammunition. As George Will pointed out in his July 2023 essay “It’s time to end the “era of the Great Distraction,” the U.S. is woefully unprepared for a sudden ramp up in the production of ammunition. For example, the Ukrainian army goes through up to 240,000 large-caliber 155mm artillery rounds per month. It goes through less now only because they do not have enough on hand. Russia, on the other hand, goes through 600,000 rounds per month. Yet the U.S. was producing only 14,400 rounds 10 months ago, and is ramping up production first to 36,000 rounds per month and 85,000 rounds per month in 2028. Even with the ramp-up, the U.S. is depleting its own reserves. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pointed out, the “current rate of Ukraine’s ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current rate of production.”
Republicans have already picked up on this issue. Ron DeSantis accused Kamala Harris of ignoring the ammunition issue. And indeed she has. But for no good reason – this isn’t an issue Democrats should just hand over to Republicans. It is a factual issue. And I know that the Biden administration is working on it. But not talking about it.
• Batteries for Used Vehicles and Farmers
The Issue
The zeal for the nation to go all electric is creating well-founded angst in rural America. There are two problems: 1) Most people I know buy low mileage used cars, which at the present time are extremely affordable. But they won’t be if you have to also put in a new $30,000 battery when you buy an older low mileage used car; and 2) on farms there are many vehicles that simply aren’t driven much. Many of us have very old, but very low mileage vehicles. Remember that farmers don’t drive to work.
The Infrastructure Bill itself is perceived as doing nothing for rural America on the electric vehicle front. It supports doctors and lawyers who buy new cars, but hurts buyers of used cars and farmers who have low-mileage vehicles. (For high mileage vehicles, e.g. a car driven 200,000 miles in 10 years, both the vehicle and the battery should last about the same amount of time – assuming no abuse, such as completely draining the battery or overcharging it.)
The Backstory
No lithium battery has ever lasted more than 15 years, even if perfectly maintained in a mild climate. And many car batteries today are beginning to fail at the 8 to 10 year mark. Which is why battery warranties are 8 years and not 15 years. Even at 8 years (the statutory minimum), most manufacturers consider the battery fine if it still holds 70% charge. Rural voters, and in particular farmers, are acutely aware of this. We go through a lot of batteries for equipment and understand how the cold and running down a battery drastically shortens the life of the battery. My urban friends are not so aware – they are focused on range and not battery longevity.
Virtually all farms have low-mileage vehicles
On farms there are many vehicles that simply aren’t driven much. One vehicle I own is a Mercedes van that is driven about 1,500 miles per year and has 90,000 miles on it. In 10 years it will have 115,000 miles on it – but if it were an EV and even if the battery in it today is new, it is unrealistic to expect that battery to last more than 10 years. So if electric, that vehicle will require a new $30,000 battery 10 years from now. I expect that vehicle to last for about 250,000 miles. (My neighbor’s truck has 350,000 miles on it today). Replacing the battery every 10 years even 8 times would require a total of 8 batteries at a cost of $240,000. This makes no sense.
When my father passed away, we had 5 working trucks on the farm. The oldest was a 1946 Chevrolet truck. That vehicle had lasted for 80 years and was still going strong. In fact it was our second-best truck. All family farmers have a host of very old but still serviceable vehicles. Switching to all electric is causing a lot of angst.
Talking about Plug-in hybrids is a winner
Push for plug-in hybrids. An all-electric fleet is being pushed by a select group of environmental purists. Many people recognize that plug-in hybrids, which have both a gasoline engine and a small 50 mile or so battery pack, are a better answer, have a much larger environmental impact, and solve most of the problems with all-electric vehicles. Purist environmentalists loathe them because (in their words), they assume drivers won’t actually plug them in. If not, you end up with a gasoline car carrying around a heavy separate drive train for no reason.
Nonsense. Of course some people won’t plug them in. On the other hand you will be able to get 5 times as many cars on the road with the same amount of lithium that we currently have available. So even if 20% of drivers don’t plug them in you achieved getting 4 other vehicles on the road that are using electricity the majority of the time.
I know 3 people who have them and they love them. And they report that they drive 90% of the time on the battery. These vehicles are easily sold to the rural voter because it provides them with a dual-fuel vehicle that is more flexible than even a gasoline-only vehicle. It makes sense. You don’t even have to bring climate change into the discussion.
The benefits are:
a. Instead of one battery in a vehicle that has a 300 mile range, that battery can be made into 5 or 6 batteries with a 50 mile range, meaning 5 vehicles can be produced with the same amount of battery materials. This alone will vastly increase the number of miles driven on battery power alone because 5 times as many vehicles can be built. And the handful of people I know who drive hybrids report using the battery 90% of the time.
​
b. Hybrids eliminate range anxiety. If the driver exceeds the 50 mile range, there is no issue – the car simply switches over to the gasoline engine.
​
c. These batteries are easier to standardize and easier to be built into the vehicle so that replacement will require much less labor to replace than an all-electric vehicle, which requires a substantial amount of vehicle disassembly to replace.
​
d. The replacement cost of a 50 mile battery will eventually be in the range of a couple of thousand dollars and will be an amount that far more people will be able to afford for low mileage vehicles that live longer than the battery does.
​
e. There is no risk in charging these batteries with a regular 120v wall outlet, which is slow, because in a pinch you can still use the car. With a full EV, you really have to have a 240 volt charger, which is an enormous expense for many people. And there are no fast chargers installed anywhere where I live.
​
f. The anxiety of not being able to find a working charger is eliminated. These cars can be charged anywhere, even using grandma’s outlet on her house. Worse case, you simply use the gasoline engine until you get home.
​
g. When the battery does finally fail, the vehicle can still at least be driven to the dealer to have the battery replaced.
​
h. In a time of war or other supply chain disruption, these vehicles can still be driven even if replacement batteries are not available.
• Factory Farming Is the Villain, Not Beef
The Issue
The narrative today is that farming accounts for 24% of global warming. And that beef is the culprit. This is very upsetting to Electoral College Homesteaded State voters who identify as family farmers because it simply isn’t true. The culprit isn’t beef, but rather the factory farming of both beef and vegetables. For example, of the 24% cited for agriculture, exactly half of that, or 12% of all global warming, is due to the cultivation of rice. Yet no one is suggesting that we ban rice.
Rural Talking Points
It is true that factory farming is terrible for animals and terrible for the environment. It is OK to own up to that. And own up to the reality that factory farming was first pushed by the Nixon administration, when Earl Butz famously said “get big or get out.” Family farmers are very aware that this policy shift exactly coincided with the decline of the family farm and the rise of agricultural abuses that harm both animals and the environment.
And acknowledge that a very small part of the 24% is related to beef. The portion attributable to the factory farming of beef (and other meats), is less than 5%. And acknowledge that if properly done, beef can be raised in a manner that sequesters more carbon than it creates, though this must be done with very small scale farming (think organic – but be aware of the pitfalls of using that term). If we promoted more micro-sized herds, that naturally grazed otherwise unfarmable land, or the land that is currently being used to grow the crops that are then transported to feed lots, we would in a large measure be bringing back the family farm. Environmentally friendly raising of animals for consumption simply is difficult to do on a large scale at this time. But it can be done on a family farm and with no change in average price (though it requires purchasing directly from the farmer).
It is fine to criticize the factory farming of animals. I have never met a single legacy family farmer who thinks factory farming is a good idea. The people who object are the corporate farmers. Realize that the corporate farmers are responsible for very few votes, but large amounts of political contributions. Voters who identify as family farmers constitute millions of votes, but very few dollars. And there simply is no lobby that represents people like me, who were raised on a family farm, and identify as a farmer for life, but ending up working in the urban world. Be wary of your corporate donors – I have often heard them say “donate Democratic and vote Republican.”
In their natural state, ruminants are carbon negative – they till the soil with their hooves and eat weeds and grass, turning it into meat. Even trampling vegetation is carbon negative. This stimulates the growth of more vegetation. Ruminants’ manure then fertilizes the soil. And the tilling made by their hooves provides the entry point for seeds and other animals, including bees. And water – hooved animals essentially aerate the land which allows rainfall to soak into the land and replenish the aquifers. Indeed, it is the lack of ruminants throughout the U.S. is one of the reasons are aquifers are not replenishing fast enough.
But there are issues: 1) the herd needs to be moved frequently so that the soil isn’t overly damaged Wolves used to provide this function. Today organic beef farmers manually move their herds day to day by moving electric fences around the farm; and 2) there is a maximum number of animals the land can support, which is something lower than 1 animal per acre, depending on where the farm is. A feedlot is exactly the opposite of this type of farming.
​
Organic Beef is part of “No Kill Farming”
One other enormous benefit must not be overlooked. Grazing is very gentle on animals – both the grazer and for the animals that live on the land. Soil is home to billions of animals -- from burrowing owls, rabbits, and snakes, to insects. And it is important to remember that 70% of bees live in the ground. When a farmer tills the soil to plant a crop, the machinery used brutally kills these animals. When you eat a vegetable know that thousands of animals died getting that vegetable to you. Cattle that graze, on the other hand, do not kill animals. And one fully grown steer can feed 2 people for a year. So only ½ an animal died to feed you your protein for a whole year, all the while eating weeds and grass. This is win for everyone.
Eliminating the feed lot does not require additional land.
Eliminating the feed lot does not require additional land. The land comes from two existing sources. First, while the feedlot operator grows fodder in a separate location, harvests it, and then transports it to the feedlot, organic grazing simply means that the farmer is taking the animal to the vegetation – that land already exists. Rather than growing a crop, fertilizing it, harvesting it with machinery, and moving it to confined animals, let the animals roam and graze. And doing so makes the land much more productive and it grows even more feed for the cattle. The second source of land is to use all of the fallow land that exists as a result of the abandonment of innumerable small family farms. A staggering portion of this land is not farmable by large-scale factory farmers as it has one of a number of defects - too hilly, too remote, too small, etc. But a small family farmer can easily graze cattle on otherwise unusable land.
•The Right to Repair Farm Equipment
The Issue
The old adage about family farming is that it is 10% farming and 90% fixing things. And farmers keep equipment until it simply wears out, which can be 50 or more years. In 2018 when my father passed, our oldest truck was a 1946. It was our second best truck. We were also using pickups that were built in the 1970s and 80s all for different purposes, but still serviceable, even if not road worthy. Those vehicles were up to 75 years old. And we were still using equipment that was built in the 1940s and 1950s. My bulldozer is 70 years old and still has 9,000 hours of life left on it. Today it is becoming more and more difficult to keep newer machinery running, not just because of the complexity of machinery, but because manufacturers are attempting to prevent famers from making their own repairs.
Rural Talking Points
Be on top of this issue, even if it is not part of the party platform. At the present time it is primarily a state issue. And there is legislation pending in 16 states (Colorado has already passed such legislation) to mandate the right to repair. On the national stage, it could be a national defense issue. It goes to resilience and the ability to farm during a catastrophe or war. What exactly is the federal government doing on this issue?
The Backstory
Family farmers are very aware of what equipment can be repaired and what cannot be easily repaired. Today there is strong demand for certain older vintages of equipment because or reliability and the ability to repair that equipment. On some modern equipment, if you break down in the field, your only option is to transport the equipment on a flatbed to the dealer, losing days if not weeks of productive time. Right to Repair legislation attempts to force manufacturers to at least give farmers the tools to make their own repairs.
​
The issue though, goes deeper than just an economic one of down time. There is a consistent verbalized worry that in a time of catastrophe or war, we will all be pulling out our vintage tractors to farm as they will be the only equipment that we can keep running. I was surprised to hear recently and old farmer point out that with a well-placed EMP blast, all the newer equipment would stop working. Newer equipment is simply viewed as being more complex and fragile.
​
I would place this issue under the umbrella of making the US resilient to catastrophe and war. President Obama had this in his agenda, at least generally. Most rural voters believe that we are currently in a proxy war with Russia and that war with China (because of Taiwan) in some fashion is likely. Identify the issue as something to work on and let rural voters know that they have been heard.
• Renewable Energy
The Issue
Rural voters and farmers in particular are big fans of solar power – it is an additional source of energy and once installed, free. It has nothing to do with climate change. Democrats could leverage this. The recent Infrastructure Bill is missing an opportunity with respect to the adopting of solar energy and electric vehicles.
Rural Talking Points
When speaking to rural voters in the 8 Electoral College Homesteaded States, speak in terms of making the United States stronger and more resilient. President Obama did this beautifully. Simply drop “climate change” from your narrative. The result will be even more positive with the simple narrative that every farm should have solar arrays, large shed-sized storage batteries, and a sprinkling of electric tractors and vehicles. This simply makes farming more resilient. And it sends the message to other rural voters that solar is the way to go.
The Backstory
If you look at any farm equipment magazine, solar is always presented as a cost-saving and resilience measure. And these are certainly the reasons I installed solar arrays on my farm – it was primarily to provide backup power in the case of a power outage. In practice, I found that at least in the summer, I produce much more electricity than I consume. So my solar usage has crept up and up because it makes more economic sense than I originally anticipated. I just can’t store it as my battery pack is limited due to cost. Yet because I have a solar array on my farm, numerous other neighbors have begun to jump on the bandwagon. Never do I mention climate change in any discussion of why I have these panels. The economics stand on their own.
A neighboring farmer is now putting in a solar array (with a propane generator backup) to power his shed-sized freezer for his beef, based on my experience with solar. He anticipates that the propane generator will not be needed except in the case of long period of rain in the summer and a warm spell in the middle of winter. This makes our farms strong, resilient, and up to the task.
An issue that comes up from time to time in Michigan relates to strength and resilience in a time of war. Michigan is on track to eliminate all of its coal-fired plants, relying instead on new gas-fired plants and renewables with no new nuclear. While there is no disagreement that coal-fired plants are dirty, the stated concern is that we are eliminating reliable sources of energy in a time of war. Coal can be stored on site and is perceived to be reliable in a time of war, while gas pipelines can easily be disrupted. And solar arrays can be destroyed with an EMP blast. (But can be hardened). I have heard several rural voters opine that we should be keeping a small handful of coal plants in each state operating at a low level so that we have energy resilience, even if we dial those plants way back in times of peace. This is a very rational point of view – be aware of it and be able to respond to it.
​
• 2026 Breathalyzer Cars
The Issue
The recent Infrastructure Bill contains a mandate that manufacturers install systems in all vehicles beginning in 2026 that will prevent them from operating unless the driver passes a sobriety test. This is not going over well in rural America. The provision is already being used to demonstrate why Democrats should not be in power. And it is having success – I have already heard neighbors who loathe Trump say that they would vote for him solely because “he would never allow this.” This is a ticking time bomb that no one asked for.
Can you imagine what would have happened in Hawaii if half of the cars wouldn’t start to allow people to flee the fires? Merely because you just had a glass and a half of wine?
Rural Talking Points
Kill this legislation. Or put in place the alternative I describe below.
The Backstory
When I first heard of this provision, I was skeptical that it was real, and I immediately pulled up the legislation. And indeed the provision is in there, with an alcohol test of .08. And I haven’t met anyone, urban or rural, who even knew this was under consideration. This is the poster child of bad legislation. If you are going to take away people’s cars, you better have significant buy-in before doing so.
No one wanted this legislation other than MADD, which will account for essentially zero additional votes - those are people who will vote for Democrats in any event. The fact that it was passed is an example of exactly what people complain about – Democrats did this for MADD’s dollars. It didn’t garner any additional votes. And it had zero socialization with the public. This issue alone is sufficient to flip the next election, which Democrats should win, to the Republican candidate. If not in 2024, certainly as soon as the first of these cars comes on the market.
Democrats often lose sight of the fact that it is the little things that impact a voter’s everyday life that are important. A car that doesn’t start falls squarely in that bucket. And it taints the whole Infrastructure Bill, which otherwise is generally perceived as a good thing. This is an unworkable piece of social engineering that no one asked for and I am flabbergasted that Democrats would put this type of ticking time bomb in their bill. All this can possibly do is cost votes. The following are rural voters’ comments that I have heard:
1) No one asked for this and we were blindsided by it;
2) What would happen in a time of war? It is very easy to get something to not run. An enemy could easily disable every vehicle in the country by spoofing our cars into thinking the driver has a blood alcohol of .08.
3) If a hurricane suddenly changed direction and an emergency evacuation were ordered, do you really want people’s cars to not start? Especially when at most they will be moving at 10 miles per hour?
4) When there is a fire and the volunteer firefighters can’t get there (rural America doesn’t have professional fire departments) because their vehicles won’t start is that a good result? And our pool of potential firefighters is only about 25 people. If you have ever shown up at a fire as a volunteer firefighter, you will know that there are always several firefighters who show up not quite sober. But you want them there and they in fact sober up pretty quickly.
5) This is a poster child of Democrats acting as a puppet for interest groups. They took MADD’s dollars in exchange for the legislation. It didn’t even garner an extra vote for Democrats.
6) It is legal to drive impaired on the farm. People drive all the time over the limit – you have to take care of animals 24/7. But in fenced off areas, that is perfectly legal. You might have a few drinks at your daughter’s graduation party, but you still have to drive across the farm that night to take care of the animals. And your vehicle isn’t going to start? Even though there aren’t even any cars that one could possibly hit. So a farmer can either never have a drink or should abuse his animals by not feeding them. Really? And I note that of the approximately 16 deaths that occur on farms per year in Michigan, none have been ever been attributed to alcohol.
7) This is an affront to property rights – it is wrong to have social engineering impact my property rights especially when the risk being addressed does not exist on my property.
8) What happens when the technology fails? All of us have farm equipment with safety features that eventually fail. We work around that. But for a car, you can’t even take it in for repair?
9) And I have my own particular example – when I was in law school in Detroit and first came out, we went to the gay bars in Detroit. They were all located in terrible inner city neighborhoods. You scurried from your car to the bar. Then at 2 a.m. everyone ran to their cars and drove home. I can’t imagine what would happen if your car didn’t start so you couldn’t even move it. And no, of course you should never do this. But people do. If this happened to my daughter, I would rather have her be able to flee, even with lights flashing and the horn blowing, than be trapped in a car that won’t start. I can just imagine the Republican ad on this point.
10) And how would this have gone over in Hawaii when people were trying to flee the fires? You actually don’t want to have their car start because they had a glass and a half of wine?
I am not arguing that any of these are good, correct, or persuasive reasons. These are perceptions and voters are more than worried about them. The point is that none of these have been addressed publicly and many of them seem like valid points. And perception becomes reality. And there is an alternative to simply having the car not start, which I discuss below.
Solutions:
1. Kill this legislation. This legislation is a ticking time bomb.
Or:
2. Modify the legislation as follows:
If the driver may have been drinking, have the car flash the headlights and taillights. This would dissuade the driver from driving until sober. Law enforcement and other drivers would also be aware there is an issue. Yet if there really is an emergency, at least the driver can escape. Finally, if the technology fails or glitches while you are hiking in the remote Yukon, the car will still be operable and the condition can easily be explained to the police. For the rural voter, it will allow farmers to get to their animals and get them fed. This seems like a much better solution.
• Rural Broadband
The Issue
The rural broadband expansion provided by the Infrastructure Bill has been well received in rural America. And the comparison that the Administration made in its June 26, 2023 press release comparing this to the Rural Electrification Act was wise and spot on. This is something to talk about. Until it isn’t. Don’t overplay it – once implemented voters move on to the next issue.
Rural Talking Points
My farm in Michigan just received fiber optic internet. My neighbors also are thrilled to have it. The issue is to stay on point and talk about this as leveling the playing field between urban and rural America. Never refer to it as a benefit – no one wants to be perceived as receiving a handout. The Electoral College Homesteaded States have an innate disdain for handouts (even when they are helpful) – and there is no reason to characterize rural broadband as a handout.
​
The challenge is talking about the $30 per month subsidy that many people are receiving. Yes, people are taking advantage of it. But they don’t really want to talk about it. This issue requires a very careful threading of the needle. Frame the $30 not as a benefit, but as a means to ensure that rural and urban America are on par.
​
Be aware that once it’s implemented, people tend to move on to the “what’s next?”