seb146 wrote:2122M wrote:Dieuwer wrote:You should just visit Eastern Oregon/Washington. Will be immediately clear why they vote GOP.
Can you elaborate on that? I know the Pacific NW cities are some of the more liberal in the country, so I’m curious as to what it is specifically about those rural regions that causes them to support the GOP?
People are few and far between. They think every cent of their taxes go to Portland, Eugene, and Bend. There is little investment east of the Cascades because there is not much there; not many people, not much usable land, no major companies, etc. Southern Oregon is still stuck, in some ways, in the 1950s. Many older people will not deal with "outsiders" in many places. Ashland is much more open minded but Medford and Grants Pass are just odd. They are getting there, but at a much slower pace.
Washington is a different animal. With larger areas like Spokane and Pasco/Richland/Kennewick (Tri-Cities) being center to center left. There are parts of eastern Washington that face similar issues eastern Oregon does. They think all tax dollars go to Seattle. There is a lot Spokane and Tri-Cities have to offer. Both areas are growing and have great opportunities, if you have the right education. But, many places simply do not have the population to support a tech boom or justifying large investments.
So what should democrats be doing to make inroads in these areas? Environmental protection policies must be a factor in a lot of these areas right? Its got to be made clear that no-one is coming to take away everyone's guns when the democrats introduce common sense gun legislation. But other than that, rural and sparsely populated areas have the most to gain from more government oversight. If everything was privatized the way the GOP likes to promote, there would be little or no investment in these rural areas at all because all the money is in the cities. Is that not an angle that appeals to these folks?