Obama's Appeal to Rural Voters

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Colorado Senator Ken Salazar this week laid out Obama's appeal to rural voters:

Obama has supported farm bills aimed at revitalizing rural America, Salazar said, while McCain has opposed all of them the last 15 years.

Obama has championed renewable energy, including biofuels that can be a way for America to help grow its way to energy independence, and McCain has not, Salazar said. The Bush administration has largely ignored rural America, home to 50 million people, the last eight years, Salazar said. What he calls "the forgotten America" includes 44 of Colorado's 65 counties. Those areas have lost jobs, health care facilities and schools, Salazar said.

What is McCain's message to rural voters? More politics of distortion. Today, at Gov. Palin's campaign rally, McCain's Colorado press spokesman Tom Kise falsely told local CBS news (video here) that Obama is against people owning guns.

< Palinomics: Grade D | Obama Up By 12 In Latest Iowa Poll >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama's Appeal to Rural Voters | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

How would we classify rural voters? (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by JAB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST

"conservative" Dem or independent (or Republican)? Or are there tons of "liberal" rural voters? (I think someone further up hit the nail on the head - rural voters are not as homogeneous as they are portrayed).

I ask because McCain is up by 15 with independents (as of yesterday). Link

Since the GOP convention and his selection of the Alaska governor as his running mate, McCain has changed a months-long tie among independents into a 52 to 37 percent advantage. Support for McCain among self-described "conservative Democrats" has jumped 10 points, to 25 percent, signaling the shift among swing voters to McCain.

Guns (5.00 / 0) (#32)
by fred in PA on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST

Obama has very clear record of opposition to to firearms, especially handguns and semiautos. There are a great number of people who share his beliefs on this subject. However,as a resident of rural PA, I can assure everyone that these positions are absolute political death in the countryside.

Iowa lead (4.40 / 5) (#3)
by JBJB on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:10:33 PM EST

Obama is up in Iowa because he supports the corn ethanol boondoggle, not really something to be proud of. Deriving ethanol from corn to be used as fuel is a really bad idea, is not good energy policy, and will do nothing to improve our energy security.

Farm welfare (4.25 / 4) (#4)
by rightyinaleftworld on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:12:47 PM EST

"Obama has supported farm bills aimed at revitalizing rural America, Salazar said, while McCain has opposed all of them the last 15 years."

These farm bills are nothing more than pork disguised as helping the poor farmer. It makes the bridge to nowher seem small by comparison. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year subsidizng inefficient farms including paying farmers not to grow crops.

Of course farmers like it. I'd like the government to pay me not to work too and vote for the guy who promised the biggest handout.

new users are limited to ten comments (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:19:01 PM EST

in 24 hours. You are at five.


But he (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST

is correct.


He is not correct (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by standingup on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:53:27 PM EST

He is repeating the over simplified, uninformed and biased propaganda that comes from opponents of the Farm Bill.


and the unfortunately chilling (4.00 / 3) (#15)
by ccpup on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST

message in this Moderator's "reminder" to that Poster that he/she had 5 comments left for the day appears to be "don't disagree with me or speak ill of The One even if you don't use profanity or character assassinate another Poster or Moderator, make a good point which is On-Topic and do so in a reasonable, intelligent manner which serves to educate people or speak ill of The Ticket even if it's done wit respect and knowledge of the subject at hand. In other words, toe the line or get out"


That's a bucket of cold water (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Anne on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:27:08 PM EST

that is being thrown so often that the comments are missing a lot of intelligent, rational, polite and articulate people who used to make this a great place to discuss the issues.

I get having standards and rules, but if you're going to have them, they should be observed regardless of whether the commenter is supporting or opposing the opinions of the post's author.


: Anne is more than able (none / 0) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:07:54 PM EST

to start her own blog with her own rules where comments are equally treated "regardless of whether the commenter is supporting or opposing the opinions of the post's author."
That's never been the policy of this site. This is a partisan site that exists to promote the point of view of the authors. Comments that work at cross-purposes defeat the intent of the blog. They are allowed in moderation.

J (none / 0) (#17)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:04:59 PM EST

Owns the blog. What she says goes. You can make your own blog or live by the rules here. It is the free market at work.


: you're right, of course (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by ccpup on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:53:08 PM EST

and I respect that this is Jeralyn's blog. And, with that in mind, I'll do my best to adhere to the often byzantine, ever-changing rules and regulations.
In fact, I plan to stay and enjoy the content and comments for as long as possible just as long as no one threatens me with their Mama or suggest my comment isn't needed as there are a lot of other Posters out there who will easily take my place and aren't currently being heard -- they'll show up on Election Day -- because they're busy now drinking lattes and chatting on their cell phones.
:-)

Yes, it is a rule (none / 0) (#22)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST

that those supporting the McCain/Palin ticket or those opposing Obama are limited to four comments a day expressing such opinions. Attacks on Obama and praise for McCain/Palin count.

This does not apply to a discussion of issues or policy or campaign strategy.

This is a partisan blog. I'm trying to help the Dems win the election. There's no reason for me to host repetitive chatter opposing the ticket. There are plenty of other sites to do that on.

We're less than 60 days out from the election. If you aren't on board with the Democratic ticket and want to vent about it, this isn't the place.

Four a day is more than reasonable.


please briefly indulge me, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#24)
by ccpup on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:16:36 PM EST

The criteria you listed above sounds both wonderfully and maddeningly simplistic. Please help me out here.

I'm not yet convinced enough by Obama to promise that I'm going to vote for him in November, yet I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of EVER voting for a Republican ticket, this year or any year.

I clearly see where Team Obama is flat-footed and making mistakes, but I also see very clearly where McCain's campaign is moving quickly and taking advantage of the other side's tactical errors. (that all works vice versa, as well)

I also still financially support downticket Dems nationally and plan to vote for them in my home State.

Am I still allowed to post on TalkLeft in light of the above criteria? My question is sincere and I appreciate your patience in answering despite your busy schedule.


Restating (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST

those supporting the McCain/Palin ticket or those opposing Obama are limited to four comments a day expressing such opinions. Attacks on Obama and praise for McCain/Palin count.
This does not apply to a discussion of issues or policy or campaign strategy.

If you haven't made up your mind, you aren't limited. If you are discussing issues, policy, strategy, etc, you aren't limited.

If you oppose Obama or express support for the McCain Palin ticket, you can only do so four times a day.

I think it's pretty clear.

Chattering and bloghogging rules still apply. There's no need to reply to every comment with a snipe of disapproval. Our rules are fully set forth here.


: thank you (none / 0) (#27)
by ccpup on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:35:13 PM EST

I hope you'll agree with me that I still fall within the parameters set by you and the other Moderators.
And I don't know that I, personally, feel the need to -- or subsequently do -- reply to every comment with a "snipe of disapproval". So, I guess I'm safe there as well.
I do appreciate your response. Thank you.

Outdated talking points (none / 0) (#9)
by eric on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:34:29 PM EST

The Acreage Reduction Program, which was the program that paid farmers it idle some land to control supply, was http://www.hobbyfarmlife.com/dictionary_agriculture_terms/Acreage_Reduction_Program.html


: something went afoul there. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by eric on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST

Anyway, the ARP program was killed in 1996.

: Outdated and incorrect (none / 0) (#13)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST

Most farm subsidies are given to the huge corporate farms/feed lots and BigAg, not the "poor" farmer.
Republicans giving welfare to big business--imagine that!

Obama is up by... (none / 0) (#1)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:05:09 PM EST

...12 points in Iowa according to the latest Iowa Poll. The message is seemingly resonating with the rural voters there.

Iowa = Biofuel Subsidies (4.25 / 4) (#2)
by jccleaver on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:10:10 PM EST

McCain's taken a more or less principled stand on ethanol subsidies, which is costing him Iowa (I hear both campaigns are pulling resources out of there already).

Frankly, if Obama wants price supports for corn farmers in exchange for starving people around the world, that's fine.... but he should expect to get hit with a McCain ad about it.

As far as non-ethanol rural and farmer voters, my impression is that the split is much more inline with expected Obama v. McCain metrics.


What a bunch of crap (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by eric on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST

Ethanol is hardly starving people. We still have surpluses of grain. It HAS raised the price, so that farmers are once again making a little money, but it is ridiculous to argue that it is depriving anyone of food.

The oil industry has done a good job of smearing biofuels. Non only have they convinced Republicans and pro-oil wingnuts that ethanol is somehow bad for their cars, but they have also convinced otherwise well-meaning people that using corn to make ethanol is limiting food supplies. It isn't.

In any case, I, for one, would rather see my fuel dollar go to Iowa then to Exxon.


so, the price (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:27:46 PM EST

of everything that corn goes into hasn't gone up? The price of dairy products hasn't gome up because of the price of feed? The price of eggs hasn't gone up because ofthe price of feed? The price of meat hasn't gone up because of the price of feed? Local story.... A woman I work with just told me last week that the local lady that she used to buy eggs from had to stop selling eggs because she couldn't afford to pay for the feed for the chickens any longer.


Might have something to do (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by eric on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST

with the price of oil, don't you think? Why would the cost of corn be more important than that cost of oil? The price of producing and transporting corn has gone way up because of oil. Why blame the corn farmer and not exxon?


: can't I blame BOTH of them? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM EST

: You are right (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by standingup on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM EST

Also higher prices for fertilizer, equipment and land. The University of Illinois in July - Study predicts crop-production costs will jump dramatically in 2009:

"There's not going to be a reduction back to lower food costs as long as we have these higher production costs," he said. "Energy prices are driving a lot of what's going on and ultimately that hits the consumer."
Along with fertilizer, grain farmers also will see hefty cost increases next year for inputs ranging from seed to fuel for tractors and other machinery, according to the study.
The study projects non-land production costs for corn will total $529 an acre next year, up 36 percent from 2008 and nearly 85 percent higher than the average of $286 per acre from 2003 to 2007. At $321 an acre, soybean input costs are projected to rise 34 percent from 2008 and more than 78 percent from the 2003-2007 average of $180 an acre.

These are non-land expenses. Land prices have soared too. The real estate bubble also pushed up the price of farmland and took some out of production as people scrambled to buy it to build homes.

The trouble (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM EST

is ethanol exists only because of taxpayer price supports. Get rid of the price supports and ethanol goes away. Besides, is takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol gives.

Additionally, it takes 1700 gallons of water to distill one gallon of corn ethanol.


More myths (none / 0) (#25)
by eric on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST

Ethanol clearly provides a net energy gain.

Even if it were only 1:1, it would be worth it because it is renewable and you don't need to fight wars half way around the world to secure ethanol.


LOL (none / 0) (#28)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 03:35:14 PM EST

you posted a link from the National Corn Growers Association. How about a more reliable link. If Corn based Ethanol is so good, then take away the tax payers price supports and let the free market decide. How about that?


I usually figure that it is fair game (none / 0) (#29)
by eric on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:03:43 PM EST

to cite an industry group when everyone else is just repeating oil industry propaganda. The studies cited there are from the USDA and Michigan State. In truth, there is only one major study, from Cornell, that has concluded there is a net energy loss.

In any case, the main studies are here:

Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol

USDA paper

Efficiency has only increased since then, BTW. Oh, and about government subsidies - how about those subsidies for oil drilling on federal land and military intervention in the middle east?


: The subsidies... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:52:37 PM EST

...are to build the refining, transport and retail outlets for ethanol. Once the infrastructure is in place and new technologies come on line, things like switchgrass or (dog forbid!) hemp can replace corn in the production of fuel.
Even though I'm not a fan of BigAg, I'd much rather support American farmers and industry that I would our ememies around the globe who can hold us hostage over oil.

: So you resort to (none / 0) (#30)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST

citing agribusiness propaganda. cool. So you acknowledge corn ethanol is not sustainable without the taxpayer support.

Your link doesn't even make your (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by tree on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 04:47:30 PM EST

point. It is a very simplistic page that tells you the difference between sweet corn and field corn. That's it for a discussion of ethanol's effect on corn prices. It does mention that 24% of field corn goes into making ethanol but it doesn't discuss how increased ethanol production impacts the price of field corn, which in turn impacts the price of livestock feed, corn cereal, corn syrup, and corn oil. Nor does it discuss how the rising price for field corn can cause farmers to increase their acreage in field corn and decrease the acres in sweet corn. Its pretty much a useless link for proving anything.

Here's another link with an alternate viewpoint. Mexico's Poor Seek Relief From Tortilla Shortage

And this one:
A Culinary and Cultural Staple in Crisis
