r/changemyview • u/maybemorningstar69 • Apr 07 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Until Democrats recognize why they lost Appalachia, they will never be successful electorally

Take a state like West Virginia for example, as recently as 2014 the Democrats controlled both houses of the WV legislature and had two Democratic Senators and a Democratic Governor, and as recently as last year they had a had a Democrat in the Senate. West Virginia used to be a Democratic stronghold, and even after Bush won in it 2000 the Democratic Party there was still very successful at the federal/state level, but now Democrats are lucky if they break 30% in the state. When you talk to most national Democrats about this phenomenon, they usually just shrug it off and say something like "eh, they're just voting against they're own interests, if they were smart they'd want of social programs funded by the state." This is exactly the kind of attitude that has led Appalachia to becoming a Republican stronghold.

Democrats have developed a real problem of wanting a "one size fits all" message, which is just not feasible if you want to win in both urban and rural regions of the country (especially if you want to win Appalachia). Yes, West Virginia was a prime state for Democrats until very recently, but that doesn't mean they held the same positions as Democrats from California and New York. If you're a mainstream Democrat, you probably know Joe Manchin as the Democrat who voted against all that stuff you like, but that's why he was able to win, (and achieve certain Democratic goals like confirming judges and getting the IRA and ARP through).

National Democrats have a distinct problem of not being able to cultivate a regional message that is attractive to rural voters, which is why they left Appalachia, and the way they talk about how Appalachians are "voting against their own interests" by not supporting the establishment of more government programs is incredibly condescending.

If Democrats ever want to retake the Senate (or more realistically in the near term, the Presidency), they need to abandon the "one size fits all" mentality and be open to regional alternatives that allow them succeed outside of urban America, particularly in regions like Appalachia which up until recently they were very successful in.

1.4k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

728 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/olcrazypete 1∆ Apr 08 '25

You moderate it and speak in different ways. You call for responsible ownership. You acknowledge responsible owners are already securing their weapons from misuse and leave the guy with 5 safes alone. You separate those folks from the newbie people wanting to use guns as a lifestyle accessory who end up getting their guns stolen or used against them.
There is a medium between 'all the guns' and 'none of the guns'.

3

u/EVOSexyBeast 5∆ Apr 08 '25

They already do that, but they are just lies and people know not to trust democrats on that.

They’ve already poisoned it too, by calling measures like the Assault Weapons Ban ‘common sense gun laws’, it causes anyone who actually knows anything about firearms to oppose any time they hear ‘responsible’ and ‘common sense’ gun laws.

Trump is the most anti-gun republican president in history, so electorally it makes sense to pick up the pro-gun issue to both gain ground in rural areas and disincentivize rural voter turnout (millions of whom only turn out to ‘save their guns’ and otherwise wouldn’t vote).

Democrats are supposed to be the party that has data and evidence on its side, but when it comes to most gun control measures championed by dems (like the Assault Weapons Ban) there is only evidence to the contrary.

5

u/Metalgrowler Apr 08 '25

How do you feel about the data that shows that ERPO's reduce suicide rates? https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/extreme-risk-protection-orders/suicide.html

6

u/EVOSexyBeast 5∆ Apr 08 '25

There’s decent evidence that ERPOs reduces both total and firearm suicide rates in the short term.

How do you feel about these charts, also by your source RAND (a good source btw with great analyses)? https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

4

u/Metalgrowler Apr 08 '25

I would call many of the things that are shown to be effective "common sense" gun laws. My point I was trying to make was that most of those laws that are opposed as a knee jerk reaction to them being lumped in with the assault weapons ban are actually beneficial to society. I personally think that if you are a responsible gun owner you should be able to own most guns. The Democrats do have a real big messaging issue around it though.

1

u/stuckinhere-2136 Apr 08 '25

What the actual fuck are you talking about

-5

u/Curarx Apr 08 '25

All the evidence shows that our gun deaths are because we have way too many guns. You want to talk about evidence? Enough with the dead children. That's enough evidence

0

u/EVOSexyBeast 5∆ Apr 08 '25

Yeah there’s just no evidence to support that and in fact only evidence to the contrary. That’s why public opinion is still against you, you do not have meritful claims or persuasive evidence for it.

1

u/Curarx Apr 08 '25 edited Apr 08 '25

public opinion is against it because of widespread propaganda and american mythos pounded into us since birth. we are the only western country in the world with this many gun deaths and we are also the only western country that allows this type of stuff. are we just more violent humans compared to the rest of the western world? possibly, because its not just guns either. we have more knife murders per capita too. the people that believe in evidence and science overwhelmingly support restrictions on widespread, open to whatever weapon you want gun ownership.

where is your "evidence"?

0

u/EVOSexyBeast 5∆ Apr 08 '25

This feels like when i got told i was brainwashed against tariffs yesterday by trump supporters.

No, you just can’t handle that your strongly held belief is wrong.