By Nicholas Jacobs
The selection of Tim Walz as Kamala Harris’ running mate has sparked a wave of commentary suggesting that simply by elevating a former small-town football coach to the candidacy for vice president, Democrats will naturally secure the allegiance of rural voters nationwide.
At first glance, such analysis – tinged with wishful thinking – seems self-evident. Walz, the governor of Minnesota, was raised in a small, rural town in Nebraska and runs a Midwestern state with a strong rural identity. And it is hard to deny that many rural advocates and writers genuinely feel seen and represented with the choice of Walz – a feeling not felt in quite some time. Indeed, you can now sport a Harris-Walz camo hat this hunting season.
But a closer examination reveals that such expectations may be overly simplistic and optimistic.
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images
Nationalization of the rural voter
While Walz’s selection may offer symbolic value, it demands a lot of a single candidate to overcome a seismic restructuring of American political geography. Over the past 40 years, as political scientist Dan Shea and I show in our book “The Rural Voter,” Republican partisans have come to dominate rural politics.
In one respect, Walz has built his career trying to reverse that tide, advocating for communities like the one he came from. His positions are, of course, open to interpretation, but Walz has had to grapple with what we call the “nationalization” of the rural voting bloc – the fact that rural voters in all parts of the country view themselves as politically powerless, victims of bad government policy and culturally maligned.
While images of corn dog-eating, dad-joking, “Midwestern Nice” folksiness have become routine in covering Walz, they do little to explain the real issues that have made rural voters a sizable force in recent American elections.
Over the past 40 years, this politicized identity has come to distinguish rural voters from urban ones, and even from other groups that are predisposed to vote for Republican or conservative candidates. Drawing on a nationally representative sample of 7,500 rural voters from February 2024, I joined 15 other scholars in digging into these views.
“Midwestern Nice” does little to capture the grievance and anxiety felt by many rural residents living across the country. As multiple indicators suggest, majorities of rural residents think their communities get less government spending than they deserve, that local kids will not do as well as their parents later in life, and that much of this is the fault of urbanites. On this front, the Midwest is no different than the rest of the country.
Limited success in rural contests
Given the fact that rural voters in the Midwest are much like the rest of the country, Walz’s performance within his home state of Minnesota is a relevant bellwether for his national appeal among rural voters. Though Walz has deep rural roots, rural voters have not always supported him as much as his backstory might quickly suggest.
In six elections over the past eight years, populist candidates for major offices in upper Midwestern states have seen differing levels of success in rural parts of their districts or states. Using the vote share that each candidate received from majority-rural counties – counties where the rural population is more than 50% of the total – as a proxy for rural support both district- and statewide, Walz’s performance has decreased among rural voters since he last ran for reelection to Congress in 2016. It does not exceed the support other candidates in the Midwest received from similar rural-majority counties.
I calculated the percent of the population living in a census-defined rural bloc for Walz’s former congressional district and the state of Minnesota. I then calculated the percent of Walz’s vote share that came from rural-majority counties in each of his past three elections, one for Congress and the other two for governor.
Like other Democrats in districts across the nation, Walz struggled to win rural voters in his congressional district – Minnesota’s First District – and statewide. Neither of those are majority-rural constituencies, but even when just looking at the most rural areas, Walz never won a majority. In fact, his largest losses running for reelection as governor in 2022 were in rural communities. That year, Walz captured just 38% of the vote in rural-majority counties across Minnesota.
Some might see this as evidence that no Democrat could do well in rural America. If not the folksy Walz, then who, they might ask?
Just look next door.
In Walz’s own Midwest region, other Democrats have performed strongly among rural constituencies. U.S. Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota performed nearly as strong as their Republican opponents within the most rural parts of their electorate. Even Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer outperformed Walz’s rural numbers.
That’s right, if Democrats wanted a candidate from the Midwest on the national ticket who did better with rural voters, Harris-Whitmer would have a better track record of rural support. And worth noting: Whitmer, Baldwin and Klobuchar each grew up in cities.
Managing Democrats’ expectations
None of this is to say that Democrats have made a mistake by playing into the rural or small-town trope that many have enthusiastically conjured over Walz’s candidacy. Walz is a clear counterbalance to the image constructed by another Midwestern, self-proclaimed spokesperson for rural America on the ballot: JD Vance.
A recent Washington Post poll on the two vice presidential nominees’ popularity shows that Walz has secured a marginal geographic advantage among voters across the U.S. In urban areas, about 20% of voters dislike Vance more than like him. Among rural respondents, just 14% of voters dislike Walz more than like him. Walz, however, is still less popular than popular among rural voters, while Vance is viewed favorably, on average.
But it is worth remembering that the most popular candidate to ever win rural America neither hails from a rural America nor pretends to. Donald Trump’s appeal lies not in his personal connection to rural life but in his ability to tap into the sentiments of rural discontent and align them with his broader political message. Trump has shown that the politics of rural identity do not easily translate to simple identity politics.
It should not be hard to find a candidate who won’t disdain rural voters as a basket of deplorables, as Hillary Clinton famously did in the 2016 presidential campaign. Nor should it be hard to find a candidate who believes that showing up in rural areas is not just good strategy but good for democracy.
But Walz’s challenge is not merely to present a rural-friendly image.
It’s addressing the deeper issues that motivate rural voters, such as economic insecurity, perceived cultural marginalization and distrust in government. Symbolic gestures – and camo hats – alone are not sufficient to sway their support.
Nicholas Jacobs is Assistant Professor of Government at Colby College.
Laurel says
Seriously? Vance can’t even order a dozen doughnuts without flubbing it up! And…he certainly doesn’t care for women, and that includes you country gals.
If any country boy thinks Trump aligns with him in any way, he is certainly fooling himself. Trump ain’t gonna get ya any gold bathroom fixtures, but he has already told the wealthy, at Mar A Lago, that he will give them more tax breaks.
Here’s what he did last time as President: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mar-a-lago-you-all-just-got-a-lot-richer-friends-tax-bill-2017-12?op=1
How did that help you?
Jim says
This article really shocked me. Until I read it, I thought that the selection of Tim Walz would assure that every voter in rural America would now vote for Harris-Walz. I thought the landfills throughout this country would suddenly be filled with MAGA hats, t-shirts, flags, tennis shoes, Bibles and NFT’s…
Thanks for setting me straight.
jackson says
The reason Republicans hate Walz so much is they were stuck with this … sorry … ignoramus … Vance.
DaleL says
The key to winning elections is to convince at least a few people, who would otherwise vote for your opponent, to either stay home or vote for you. Waltz may not cause a groundswell of rural Republican voters to vote for the Harris-Waltz ticket, but even a few will help in close states.
I write this the morning after the 9/10 presidential debate and Taylor Swift’s endorsement. The major news media are now in stampede mode (finally) concerning how unhinged old man Trump’s debate performance was. This is the same news media that ignored Biden’s decline right up until it could no longer be ignored at the first debate.
The question for any rational Republican, rural or otherwise, is whether to vote for a seriously unhinged angry old man or a sane, gasp, Democrat. To get rid of Trump and save the Republican party, Republicans must choose either not to vote or vote for Harris-Waltz. Dick Cheney didn’t endorse Harris/Waltz because he suddenly became a bleeding heart liberal, he did so because Trump is a dangerous fanatic pretending to be a populist.
Ray W. says
I have questions for the FlaglerLive community?
Apparently, former President Trump appeared on Fox & Friends this morning. He accused ABC of being “dishonest.” He said, “I think ABC took a big hit last night. To be honest, they’re a news organization — they have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license for the way they did that.”
How should his comments be interpreted? What is the reason for him to say that?
DaleL says
CNN did a separate analysis of the debate. They found that Mr. Trump made over 30 flat out false statements to just one by Ms. Harris. CNN did add that a number of other of Harris’s claims were misleading or lacked context.
Trump agreed to the terms of the debate. Real time fact checking was part of those terms. He didn’t even try to be truthful. Trump’s comments are because he lost and he needs to blame someone.
Considering that Fox media had to pay out millions for lying about voting machines and they kept their license, I think ABC is safe.
Skibum says
Comments coming from Trump’s mouth should be summarily dismissed or looked at as warnings to our democracy and way of life in America. It should be clear by now that anything he utters is either 1) another nonsensical defense that puts the blame on others for something that he did, or 2) the latest rantings from an angry old man, or 3) more lies let loose from between his lips, or 4) ridiculous conspiracy theories that have been sent to him from the dark web or that he has heard about from other psychos like JFK Jr, or worst of all 4) coded messages to right wing hate groups and extremists who are out there waiting and wanting him to call them to arms once again to attack America. This is how, in my opinion, his comments should be interpreted because I think this unhinged, immoral man will stop at NOTHING to save himself from being put behind bars where he belongs, even if it means destroying everything around him in the process.
Ray W. says
A report has it that former President Trump told Fox News viewers that he believes that Vice President Harris may have “secretly received questions in advance.”
How should FlaglerLive readers interpret Trump’s decision to argue that Harris received questions in advance? What purpose is Trump trying to establish?
DaleL says
Trump lost. He needs someone to blame. He lost because (take your pick): 1. ABC moderators had it out for him. 2. Harris got the questions (and answers) in advance. 3. I’m guessing as Trump hasn’t said this yet. ABC provided Harris with a secrete hidden earpiece and fed her the answers to the questions.
Trump is trying to deflect blame from himself for his loss onto someone else.
Sherry says
Thank you Dale L !
You are absolutely correct in your assessment. trump’s megalomania/grandiosity/narcissism makes it completely impossible for him to admit to being the least bit incorrect/less than “perfect” about anything ever. He is therefore compelled to “double down” on his lies and mistakes.
Think about how often he uses the word “perfect” to describe his actions. . . he is psychologically required to be “perfect” due to his upbringing. In words from Mary Trump’s book “Too Much and Never Enough”:
While his mother was unwell and absent, his father was the main source of nurturing for the children. But the author calls Fred Trump’s treatment of his children – parental bullying, lack of emotional attachment and encouragement, incessant criticism, disparaging comments and toxic positivity – psychological abuse.
This behavior would scar Donald for life, resulting in “displays of narcissism, bullying and grandiosity” that started to show in his early years.
Take bullying, for example – something that Donald Trump has been accused of over and over again during his presidency. He already started bullying his younger brother Robert very early on – going as far as hiding his brother’s favorite toys just to spite him – and became unbearable at home.
“Mary [Trump’s mother] remained a bystander.” She did not know how to discipline Donald and was eventually relieved when he was sent to military school at age 13 after being reprimanded one time too many.
Background. The book’s author, Mary L. Trump, a clinical psychologist, is the daughter of Fred Trump Jr., and a granddaughter of Fred Trump Sr. She has taught graduate students in the subjects of trauma, psychopathology, and developmental psychology.
Sherry says
Regarding the article. . . remember the Vice Presidential candidates are second in line to the Presidency. Considering trump’s advanced years of 78, there is a high risk that ole’ jd vance may need to be president within the next 4 years. While Tim Walz may not be everyone’s perfect cup of tea, I sure as hell would rather have him as President than jd vance.
JD the man that most certainly considers women to be second class citizens, who are good for nothing but having babies. I can’t imagine what his wife secretly/privately “really” thinks about him, and his ridiculous rhetoric against women, especially women who haven’t given birth. Hummmm. . . maybe those “Childless Cat Ladies” have simply “Eaten Too Many Dogs and Cats”!?
OMG! Really think about this. . . has the mass brainwashing of voters in our country taken us to a place in the “Twilight Zone” where some people are actually considering voting for such unhinged/whacked out people? People that mindlessly believe “everything” that pops up on their phone or TV? Is this who we really want for Vice President? For me. . . no way in hell!