A Farm-Labor Party

 Krugman notes the wide disparity between what rural Americans need and what they vote for. It's not just the crude dynamic of how tax money moves around the Federal Republic, but that's an easy way to look at it. Krugman's larger point is how much Trump hates his voters, and that's largely true. The problem is that rural voters are in an abusive relationship with the Republican Party, where they plead to be a good if Daddy just stops hitting them.

Even has Trump spends tens of millions to destroy the East Wing of the People's House; even as he sends tens of billions to bail out Argentina; even has he talks about buying Argentine beef; even as he guts the ACA tax credits; even has his Medicaid cuts imperil rural hospitals...they STILL SEEM TO FUCKING WANT HIM TO BE PRESIDENT.

At the heart of this is the epistemological bubble that much of the country lives in, courtesy of Faux News. I had an interaction on Facebook over a local election that hinges on Republican complete mismanagement of our water supply that now leaves the community on the hook for a $34M settlement. My counterpart said it was still better than the "radical Marxist demoncrats who have destroyed the country." It was like he was playing Fox News Mad Libs. 

These bubbles are really problematic, and we see that in how people - especially rural people - see our cities. Chicago is one of the absolute coolest cities in the world. It does have a gang problem that showed up for years in very localized murders. Many Americans, however, think of it as a blood soaked hellscape. 

There IS a problem that Democrats absent mindedly promulgated, which is the overly censorious character of a lot of what Carville calls "Academic Break Room Politics."  The basic thing is "You can't say that." Now a lot of things you probably shouldn't say! And apparently if you point out that Charlie Kirk was a racist, sexist demagogue, you should lose your job. Still, the culture war priorities were often counterproductive.

I would argue that Republican culture war priorities are arguably MORE counterproductive for them.

Still, the media landscape makes every Democrat Rashida Talib or Ayanna Pressley.

I'm not sure how you counteract an entire media ecosystem created to stir outrage over small things. That's what conservatives and some leftists have learned from the Age of the Algorithm. Anger drives engagement.

For Democrats to save democracy next November, I almost think that they have to allow for the creation of a regional party - a Farm-Labor Party like the one in Minnesota, but with the word "Democratic" excised. You can't fight against preconceptions, you just can't. Trump won Nebraska with almost 60% of the vote (and now he's killing their agriculture). Deb Fischer won the Senate seat with 53.3% against Dan Osborn who ran as an independent. I almost have to think that Osborn wins that today if there were a special election. 

The "Democratic Brand" is toxic in large parts of the country. Creating a regional party that appeals to working class voters without being associated with the cultural liberalism of the national party seems a way out. Democrats chose to not run a candidate in the Nebraska senate race to clear the field for Osborn. Some tacit agreement could work here. (It would have to be guarded against someone like Platner running as a third party candidate in Maine.)

In my town, Republicans routinely get 66% of the vote. However, the anger of that water issue I mentioned earlier is leading many normally Republican voters to switch their votes. They are not, however, switching their votes to the Democrats, but to a local Independent Party. Hopefully it works, but we shall see.