Can a Rural Progressivism Work in New Jersey? Part I
Over the next few weeks I will be exploring what progressivism could look like in the relatively rural areas in New Jersey, and why that matters to our 2018 Congressional races. That conversation will do deep dives into the races, districts, and more — but I want to start by framing the discussion with three maps, and thoughts about the classic Democratic approach to such districts.
The first map is from the Census and is of New Jersey’s rural/urban areas — the second map, is of gubernatorial results from the recent governor’s race, the third map is New Jersey of congressional districts.
There is an obvious correlation in the first two maps between the more dense I-95 corridor, where Democrats dominate, and the relatively more rural regions outside that corridor that lean more Republican. The same correlation holds in the critical Congressional races. Cook has New Jersey up for five competitive races in 2018: NJ5 as lean Democrat, NJ2 and NJ11 as toss-up Republican, NJ7 as lean Republican, and NJ3 as likely Republican. All include significant rural strongholds, which poses a strategic for Democrats.
There are a couple of typical strategies in the playbook for Democrats in purple or red districts. One would be to play to the base, double-down on Democratic policies, and try to win on turnout alone. A second is to tack towards the center, adopt a couple of high profile centrist or conservative positions, and try to peal off moderate Republicans. Rarely is there a turn towards progressivism, in part because in 2016 Bernie Sanders struggled with rural voters, southern voters, and African-American voters.
Read more: http://www.bluejersey.com/2017/12/can-a-rural-progressivism-work-in-new-jersey-part-i/
