Interesting Article about Rural Rage in America

[CountDeMoney]

You sounded taller on the radio.

[Ed Anger]

You sounded taller on the radio.

I laughed.

[The Minsky Moment]

I take it you mean barely impacted?

Yes.  Bad typo there

[Josquius]

The less said of japan the better.

Rural Japan is wonderful. There are empty homes, some of which get covered in undergrowth, and most people are old. It's very gentle and goes well with tea.

Rural Tennessee is a place of real anger.

The decay carries a pretty wabi sabiness about it.
But I feel for the people from those places.
I guess on the plus side at least a lot more japanese have the money and willingness to move to the city.

[Gups]

Highlights just how poorly Trump is letting down the genuine real grievances some of these people have, they deserve a lot better.

Enlighten me.  I skimmed it and I'm having a hard time seeing what these genuine real grievances are.

It seems to be this (NB, no idea if it's true but it applies to a certain extent to parts of the UK which were one industry towns/cities and have been devastated by the loss of that industry).

They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed.

See, rural jobs used to be based around one big local business -- a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town dies. Where I grew up, it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been. The roof of our high school leaked when it rained. Cities can make up for the loss of manufacturing jobs with service jobs -- small towns cannot. That model doesn't work below a certain population density.

If you don't live in one of these small towns, you can't understand the hopelessness. The vast majority of possible careers involve moving to the city, and around every city is now a hundred-foot wall called "Cost of Living." Let's say you're a smart kid making $8 an hour at Walgreen's and aspire to greater things. Fine, get ready to move yourself and your new baby into a 700-square-foot apartment for $1,200 a month, and to then pay double what you're paying now for utilities, groceries, and babysitters. Unless, of course, you're planning to move to one of "those" neighborhoods (hope you like being set on fire!).

In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town -- aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive.

[Jacob]

Another, related, take the concerns of Trump voters: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety

[Syt]

Another, related, take the concerns of Trump voters: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/15/13286498/donald-trump-voters-race-economic-anxiety

Anxiety and fear seem to be prevalent in many Western democracies these days.

[The Minsky Moment]

But articles point is that Trump's support is basically regular GOP voters, just somewhat fewer than Romney.

That confirms what I'm seeing re Trump support - people who complain about taxes, say something about the Supreme Court, "Hillary is just as bad".  Basically people who would vote for a steaming pile of turd or a convicted serial killer as long as they kept taxes low and appointed Federalist Society types to the federal courts.

[LaCroix]

the article's economic hardship angle only applies to some rural areas. north dakota, etc., doesn't seem affected by that. coal towns, sure, but those are only some rural areas

[Barrister]

But articles point is that Trump's support is basically regular GOP voters, just somewhat fewer than Romney.

That confirms what I'm seeing re Trump support - people who complain about taxes, say something about the Supreme Court, "Hillary is just as bad".  Basically people who would vote for a steaming pile of turd or a convicted serial killer as long as they kept taxes low and appointed Federalist Society types to the federal courts.

Nah, Trump is pulling a few new voters over.  He's looking like he will win in Iowa, which went Democratic last time around.

But yes - he's losing more voters than he is gaining.

[LaCroix]

obama had an amazing campaign. I don't think it's fair to call it democrat territory

[Barrister]

obama had an amazing campaign. I don't think it's fair to call it democrat territory

I looked it up - Iowa has only voted Republican once since 1984.  I think it's safe to call it a blue state.

[Scipio]

obama had an amazing campaign. I don't think it's fair to call it democrat territory

I looked it up - Iowa has only voted Republican once since 1984.  I think it's safe to call it a blue state.

That's because of the farming issue. For decades, farm subsidies were the province of the Democrats. GOP used to rail against them.

But look at Iowa's local politics- pretty right wing.

[LaCroix]

since 1968, it's gone dems 6, repubs 6. house/senate/governor seems mixed. I think at best you can say iowa leans democratic slightly more than republican. though the next ten years could further push the state blue, it still seems somewhat up in the air

[Admiral Yi]

That's because of the farming issue. For decades, farm subsidies were the province of the Democrats. GOP used to rail against them.

But look at Iowa's local politics- pretty right wing.

I've always thought agriculture bills were an evil bipartisan effort between farm state Republicans who liked subsidies and urban Democrats who liked food stamps.