I'm curious: If Joe Biden can improve relations with China, and get an actual beneficial trade deal

[In It to Win It]

with China buying our farmers crops again, would that improve our standing with rural voters?

In my mind, I don’t see why we can also be a party that includes rural voters. I don’t understand the deep loyalty rural voters have to the GOP. I really don’t get it.

I think Trump has left an opening for Democrats to improve its standing with rural voters because he has fucked up so royally.

I bring this up because the patches of dirt in Wyoming, the Dakotas, and the other flyover states send more people to the Senate than the Democratic Party does.

[RockRaven]

1. They won't give Biden any credit for it. They'll say he got a deal made because of Trump's

Trade War giving him the leverage to make China negotiate.

People can rationalize damn near anything. Facts don't matter as much as emotions and "gut feelings" etc.

[In It to Win It]

7. True, but I don't think that's an excuse for not trying

...and in the end it would actually benefit people.

[RockRaven]

10. I certainly think Biden should try to make trade deals which actually benefit Americans, but

I'm just saying don't expect rural areas to give him any credit for it.

There will be no reward for doing what you think is right, except knowing that you did what you thought was right.

[In It to Win It]

14. On the flip side, I'm thinking Republicans won't like Biden taking a shot for their voters

[marylandblue]

2. Votes are about identity and values, not just money.

You called them "patches of dirt" and 'flyover country." Trump greatly benefitted from your condescension and used it as part of his politics of greivance. Now they don't want crap from you. Sorry.

"Flyover country" should be banned.

[In It to Win It]

12. I don't disagree that people vote not just on money

Some people do see the trade issue with China is apart of a values belief, and America’s position on trade worldwide as apart of a set of values.

...and I’m not calling the states or people themselves “patches of dirt.” I was kinda being literal. I’m saying the actual patches of dirt between each town in these states have more Senate representation than the Democratic Party.

[marylandblue]

16. Well the patches of dirt don't literally vote, people do.

And you called it flyover country. It's not just about your choice of words, it's an attitude that a lot of "coastal elites" convey and Trump was very effective in turning this attitude against us. We aren't getting them back with some trade deal that may add a few cents to their bottom line. If we want them back, we need to give them some respect.

This seems obvious to me, but it is heretical to many Democrats. They know it too. Don't shoot the messenger.

[underpants]

3. Rural or not Trump made hate okay for them. He gave them cover

“Hate” meaning mainly racism but with some sexism, intolerance, and generally being an asshole thrown in.

He was so over the top they could say “Well I don’t like HOW he says it....” that bullshit. They don’t care how he says it, they like it. He cost them farms and everyone thousands of dollars with his dumbass tariffs. They don’t care. They get to wink and nod at each other in public because Trump says what they want to hear.

[Glamrock]

4. Ahahahahahaha!

You should write for The Onion, In It!

[unblock]

5. Fox News and hate radio would just say trump set it up

and Biden was just taking credit for his "work"

Because all they do is lie lie lie.

[MontanaFarmer]

6. Yes. There's an opening.

It won't bring them all back, but some. Commodity prices are shitty from both poor trade deals under trump and decades of shitty ag policy that frankly has been written by agribusiness and pushed by both parties. A more meaningful step would be to push policies that increase food security and commodity prices. If the Biden administration and rural democrats frame it right, and execute it right, there are opportunities to both improve farmers' bottom line and help in the fight against climate change. I'll be in this fight, trying to help craft policy and steer the messaging as we head into the next farm bill.

[JI7]

8. The TPP was the deal that would have helped put a check on China

but under Trump China has been free to do as they want and have more power and influence around the world.

So it will be even more difficult.

[In It to Win It]

9. Trump's "go at it alone" tactic is one that I did not agree with

The TPP required a coalition of countries.

Unfortunately, China is too big to go at it alone. Although, I’m sure it’s difficult, I think Biden is capable of leading a coalition of countries that can actually limit China’s influence and bad economic practices.

[MontanaFarmer]

11. This. x1000.

It wasn't perfect, multilateral trade deals rarely are, but Obama was smart enough to see China's influence in the region needed to be checked. Trump tore all that up because 1) he's a fucking vindictive asshole and 2) the only "deals" he'd ever made were bilateral, so i guess he automatically assumed that bilateral deals are better and that he, master negotiator, could make a good one. We're still paying the price.

[moondust]

15. +1

Agree.

[moondust]

13. Are you saying

the free socialist money bribes won't go on forever?

Maybe depends on what China has done to replace the U.S. as major supplier of soybeans, etc. Is somebody else meeting China's demand now?

Ask Trump's Ambassador to China and former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad--if you can find him. (He resigned as ambassador last month to work on Trump's re-election campaign. )