The Rural Problem: Why Democrats Struggle With Rural Voters and How They Can Win Them Over

Democrats have a rural problem. 

After failing to recapture the Senate and losing ground in the House despite record-breaking turnout and a 7 million margin in the popular vote, many organizers and pundits have pointed out that Democrats need to reassess their electoral strategy. If Democrats want to do more than just win presidencies, they have to move beyond focusing only on cities and suburbs and start winning over rural voters. 

According to the progressive nonprofit organization RuralOrganizing.org, half the country’s population lives in nine states, meaning half the country is represented by just 18 senators. The other half, in mostly rural states, has 82 senators. 

“So today, especially when it comes to institutions like the Senate, a rural red vote is worth more than a blue urban one,” explains RuralOrganizing.org.

The solution? Start winning over rural voters. But that’s easier said than done for a Democratic party that's become synonymous with metropolitan dominance. Republicans, on the other hand, have found great success with rural voters. 

According to data published by the Daily Yonder, a digital media outlet that covers rural issues, Trump snagged 63.2% of rural votes in 2016 and 65.9% in 2020. On the other end of the spectrum, Clinton won 62.8% of major metro counties, while Biden won 64.5% in 2020. Trump won small metro counties 56.0% in 2016 and 57.5% in 2020.

The graph below breaks down the percentage of votes by county type. Generally, the higher the population count, the better Democrats do. The inverse is true for Republicans. 

In other words, Trump did about as well with rural voters as Democratic candidates did with metro voters. Even though that translates to fewer votes, it still yields more electoral college votes and greater congressional representation. 

To put it simply, California, with its population of almost 40 million, has less Senate representation than the 10 least-populous states (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Maine and New Hampshire) combined. Two senators represent about 30 million more people than 20 senators. 

The stark reality of a grossly imbalanced electoral system points to an inescapable imperative for Democrats: To firmly control the Senate and win down-ballot races, they need to start winning over rural voters.

What is rural anyway? 

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), "rural" is sometimes defined by population density, while other times, it is defined by geographic isolation. The threshold to differentiate between rural and urban ranges from 2,500 to 50,000. 

The U.S. Census Bureau, on the other hand, defines rural as "any population, housing or territory" that isn't urban. Its definition is based primarily on population size and density. 

"Urban" is split into two types: (1) urbanized areas, which have populations of 50,000 or more; and (2) urban clusters, which have a population between 2,500 and 50,000. The split between rural and metro or urban isn't strict. While there are pockets of completely rural areas, most counties are made up of a combination of both rural and metro areas. In the 2010 U.S. Census, about 60 million people—or 19% of the population—lived in rural areas.

These Americans are more diverse than commonly imagined. Sarah Jaynes, director at the Rural Democracy Initiative (RDI), recently led a press call with several rural organizing groups to discuss lessons learned from the election. During the call, Jaynes addressed this misconception.

"One of the myths that we are determined to break is the idea that rural is somehow code for white, when actually, one in five rural residents are people of color, and this number is growing fast."

RuralOrganizing.org's "Progressive Strategies for Rural Engagement" report cites several key examples of non-white rural communities, including Black communities in the Mississippi River Delta and in the Black Belt; Native American communities in the West and Midwest; and Latino communities in the Southwest. 

"Rural" also does not equal "farmers."

"Despite a strong association between rural America and farming, farmers don't even make up 10% of the rural workforce," says RuralOrganizing.org's report. "Most rural Americans are employed in the education, healthcare, and social assistance sector, and more rural Americans work in manufacturing and retail than agriculture."

Rural America's struggles

Donald Trump scored huge wins in rural America in part by tapping into a deep sense of despair in these areas—many of which have never fully recovered from the Great Recession. 

Some of the biggest issues facing rural America include lack of access to affordable and adequate healthcare, a yawning digital divide and crumbling infrastructure.

According to Pew Trusts, the National Rural Health Association’s Policy Institute found that “nearly 80% of rural counties are short on primary care doctors, and 9% have none.” Since 2005, 176 rural hospitals have closed, 136 since 2010. 

The suicide rate in rural areas is also higher than in urban areas, and is driven by poverty, unemployment and a lack of access to mental healthcare. Meanwhile, the opioid epidemic has inflicted a staggering death toll in many rural communities. 

Compared to healthcare, access to broadband may not seem as pressing. However, according to the FCC, "Without access to broadband, rural Americans cannot participate in the digital economy or take advantage of the opportunities broadband brings for better education, healthcare, and civic and social engagement." The agency estimates that approximately 35% of rural Americans don't have access to high-speed internet.  

Even more basic forms of infrastructure are also lacking in some places. During the rural organizing press call, Tara Benally—who works in the Southwest—said that 40% of the people in her Navajo reservation and within her communities don't have running water or electricity. 

"I had to take the time to really see and understand what the communities were thinking, where they were coming from, and what views they were looking at with the election," Benally said. 

"I was getting responses like, 'Why? Why should I vote? Why should I register to vote? I don't get any help from the government? The last candidate who voted didn't make an effort to come to my community. Look at my home. I don't have running water. I don't have electricity. So what gives you—why should I listen to you when you come into my door and tell me that I need to register and vote?' You know, that was really an eye-opener for me," said Benally. "I had to really sit down and think, 'Yeah, why? Why am I asking the people to vote?'"

Why Dems struggle to win over rural voters

Benally's experience points to one of the main reasons why Democrats continue to struggle with rural voters. It isn't because of policy differences. In fact, according to RuralOrganizing.org's research, rural voters frequently agree with progressive policies. 

In a recent study, RuralOrganizing found that 80% of rural white voters agreed that the government should "ensure that everyone living in this country has access to affordable healthcare." Seventy-eight percent of rural white voters agreed there should be a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who pay taxes and pass background checks. Seventy-three percent of rural white voters agreed that "Congress and the president should support a bold national climate policy agenda that advances the goal of economic, racial, and climate and environmental justice."

If it isn't policy that drives rural voters away from Democrats, then what is it? According to RuralOrganizing.org's executive director, Matt Hildreth, it's that rural Americans don't feel as if Democrats truly care about them and their struggles. 

According to Hildreth, only 34% of rural white voters felt that Biden cared about voters like them. "Our polling shows that rural voters connected with Donald Trump's promise to 'drain the swamp' because rural voters feel that they have been left behind by powerful people."

During the rural organizing press call, the state canvassing manager for Pennsylvania Stands Up, Dom Holmes, echoed Hildreth's argument. "One thing that Republicans and Donald Trump have been successful in doing is making people believe they care. Even if we all know they don't. They make people believe they care, and that's a large part of the battle."

But Democrats need to do more than simply point the finger at Republicans. "Organizing in areas like this, you cannot go to people's door and just say 'this is the party of moral correctness. We're the party of doing the right thing, and that's the party of evil,'" said Holmes. "It doesn't work that way around here. It won't work."

Bill Hogseth is the chair of the Dunn County Democratic Party in Wisconsin. Earlier this month, he published an op-ed in Politico in which he speculated on why Democrats continue to lose in rural counties like his.

"From my experience, it’s not because local Democrats failed to organize in rural areas," said Hogseth. "Instead, after conversations with dozens of voters, neighbors, friends and family members in Dunn County, I’ve come to believe it is because the national Democratic Party has not offered rural voters a clear vision that speaks to their lived experiences. The pain and struggle in my community is real, yet rural people do not feel it is taken seriously by the Democratic Party."

Rural voters "want to see elected leaders and advocates actually show up and fight for them," said Jaynes. "So trying to be moderate and blend in will not work in these communities." If rural Americans don't feel as though the Democratic party will fight for them, why would they show up to the polls?

The other big issue lies in the "pervasive" stereotypes between rural and urban Americans. "Over the last two decades, many progressives became convinced that most rural people opposed their agenda of justice, equality and solidarity, while many rural people became convinced that progressives are coastal elitists who care only for urban flourishing and want to fundamentally change their rural way of life," explains RuralOrganizing.org's report.

The report also found that right-wing media amplifies this narrative. Democrats have failed to adequately understand and address the concerns of rural Americans, and as a result, perpetuate the stereotype that "all the politicians are the same." 

In his op-ed, Hogseth said, "My fear is that Democrats will continue to blame rural voters for the red-sea electoral map and dismiss these voters as backward. But my hope is for Democrats to listen and learn from the experiences of rural people."

So how can Democrats make inroads with rural voters?

Rural organizers have a number of suggestions for winning over and mobilizing rural voters. A common refrain is the importance of connecting with potential voters on a personal level. 

"It's not about the organizations going in and taking over," said the Rural Utah Project's Benally. "It's about being able to sit and listen to truly understand what people want and need, to gain trust and to be sincere in the matter."

Benally became a familiar face in the Navajo communities and built a good rapport with them, so by the time she knocked on their doors, people knew her and knew where she was coming from.

The organizations Benally worked with, the Rural Utah Project and the Rural Arizona Project, registered a total of 8,375 individuals in the Navajo Nation. Navajo voters proved to be crucial in swinging Arizona blue. 

In rural Michigan, We the People Michigan focused on building relationships and empowering local organizers. "In Michigan, our success came from the community that we built and the work of developing leadership within it," said Rural Director Megan Hess, who worked with rural and Native communities in northern Michigan. "It came from trusting local leaders to know what was best in their communities and enabling them to achieve it by building skills, deepening shared analysis and resourcing them."

"We didn't start with a plan or a strategy or a timeline that was handed down from somewhere else. We didn't even start with an electoral strategy," Hess added. "We started with people, and we asked them what building power should look like in their local communities."

One of the methods for building these relationships and winning back the trust of rural Americans is through deep canvassing, which requires lengthy conversations with potential voters. 

Relational organizing is key

"Deep canvassing focuses on relational organizing," explained Holmes. "It focuses on compassionate curiosity and vulnerability through story-sharing and listening."

"We were real. We were honest. And we were sincere about how we were connecting," Holmes added. PA Stands Up was able to mobilize 53,000 people to vote for Biden in Pennsylvania. 

Julia Bomar, executive director at the Wisconsin Farmers Union, also advocated for deep canvassing and relational organizing. "For rural areas, neighbor-to-neighbor work is really what matters, and people trust those that they know," said Bomar. "And so the easiest way to really break down some of these horrible partisan divides is to have a real conversation, sometimes difficult conversation, with people about what matters to you."

Politics is personal, and in rural America, messengers are everything. As such, rural organizers suggest investing in local progressive messengers. According to RuralOrganizing.org, this serves two purposes: First, it challenges the falsehood that all progressives are urban and therefore outsiders; and second, local messengers will be able to connect with voters and have the kinds of personal conversations that many organizers have found success with. 

Rural organizers have also stressed that Democrats must both understand and embrace the diversity in rural communities. 

In addition to deep canvassing, RuralOrganizing.org has offered three key strategies for progressives to win in rural areas. These are: addressing and dismantling the stereotypes and distrust that prevents authentic engagement; building power and local leadership through "community care, values-based framing"; and embracing progressive policies that are rooted in rural prosperity, particularly through the establishment of a national Office of Rural Prosperity to solve the unique challenges rural America faces, including education, healthcare and job creation.

"Trust is earned slowly," said Hogseth in his op-ed. "It can’t be earned back with campaign slogans or TV ads. When people feel left behind, they look for a way to make sense of what is happening to them. There is a story to be told about rural America, yet Democrats are not telling it."

Hogseth argues that for Democrats to start telling a story about rural America that resonates with voters, they need to show that they are willing to fight for rural people, rather than just proposing a "rural plan" or visiting a farm. 

Hogseth suggests Democrats can start by enforcing antitrust laws and taking on Big Ag consolidation. Other policy suggestions include expanding healthcare and closing the digital divide by bringing high-speed internet to all of America.

"The path to progressive power nationally runs through the Senate," wrote RDI in its post-press call release, "and the path to the Senate runs through rural America." 

If Democrats want to win presidencies and win congressional seats, if they want to be able to effect policy changes that benefit Americans as a whole, they have to start winning over rural Americans. In order to do so, they have to show that they are willing to fight for rural America.