Bringing back working-class Democrats 

Larry Acton was once a Democrat but today, like many rural, working-class voters, the Springfield man supports Republicans.

“The party changed – not me. The Democratic Party has become elitist and focused on issues that have nothing to do with how I live my life,” the 61-year-old livestock feed salesman said. 

Acton reflects a national trend – rural, working-class voters who are abandoning the Democratic Party. 

Springfield native and former U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos recently issued a report examining the exodus of working-class people from the party that was once synonymous with blue-collar laborers. 

The report, written by Bustos and Monmouth College faculty member Robin Johnson, is a collection of interviews with 22 Democratic officeholders in working-class, “toss-up” Midwestern districts that can be won by either party. 

In all the districts the percentage of college-educated voters was less than the national average of 35% and the candidate received less than 60% of the general election vote, indicating significant Republican opposition. Just six Democratic members of Congress in the Midwest meet these criteria, according to the report. 

“We issued a report right after the 2016 election, after the 2020 election and now after the 2024 election. Each time we have decided to only focus on Democrats who win in the toughest districts in the center part of the country,” Bustos told Illinois Times. “We want to focus on the people who win every election and how they won. And what they did that was different.”

Bustos expressed frustration with the quality of public commentary about elections and wanted her report to be different. 

“If you watch some of these political shows or (listen to) some of the podcasts, many of them have people who ran or served in high-level positions but then ended up losing – and then they go on to be political pundits.”

It’s the economy, stupid 

Bustos said a key takeaway from the report is that successful Democratic candidates in working-class districts need to focus on economic issues and steer clear of cultural fights such as transgender rights, abortion or gun control. 

“They don’t focus on social issues because that is what has gotten the Democratic party in so much trouble,” she said. “People in these swing districts want to know that you’re looking out for them, whether you’re Black or white or brown or anything else. It is not a check-the-box mentality from these voters. They don’t like the segmentation. If you’re focusing on any one group, they end up feeling left out. They just want somebody who’s going in and fighting for them and making sure that their families can do well.”

Her view was echoed by James Carville. In an interview with IT, the chief political strategist for President Bill Clinton said the Democratic Party’s brand has been damaged in rural areas.

“I don’t think you can overestimate the damage that the language of the identity left has (done to) hurt rural Democrats. … Language really took a toll on the brand of the party, and you know, thank God people are pushing back on it. I’ll give you an example: ‘Defund the police.’ They are the stupidest three words in the history of the English language. Only 15% of the party (liked) this language, but its damage to the general party brand was much greater. This was an idiotic idea, and everybody knows it now. And it’s going to take probably this (election) cycle to wash most of the stench off of us.”

Carville is known for coining the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid,” during the 1992 presidential election. Incumbent George W. Bush had 90% approval ratings in March 1991, days after the ground war in Kuwait, but by August 1992, 64% of polled Americans disapproved of his job performance. Carville stressed that economic issues were the most important factor for voters, and Clinton’s campaign used the growing concerns of a recession to successfully unseat Bush.

David Axlerod, the chief political adviser to President Barack Obama, agreed with this analysis, telling IT, “Today, these economic issues are paramount to most working-class people in small towns and large. And there’s a fundamental feeling that the system has failed.  That it’s not fair. That it’s rigged against everyday people. I think people are looking for fundamental change and fundamental reforms that will ensure that their voices and their interests are heard and represented and these big corporate interests won’t dictate the agenda in Washington.

“They’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about these things for a long time, but it doesn’t feel as if it’s getting better. … Donald Trump is tearing down the status quo in Washington. The destruction of some of the things that he’s tearing down will have long-term and negative implications for these communities, but people are not looking for the Democratic Party to run candidates of restoration. They don’t want to go back. They want to go forward and build something better.”

Axlerod said urban Democrats working campaigns in rural districts often approach elections either as “missionaries” trying to convert folks to their way of thinking or “anthropologists” trying to figure out why rural voters believe certain things. Both approaches alienate rural voters who find them condescending and elitist, he said. Instead, he contends they need to collaborate, listen to and learn from rural constituencies. 

Missouri state Rep. Jeremy Dean, one of the politicians profiled in the report, stressed the importance of creating opportunities “not just for the wealthy.” But he spoke in terms of helping people, not taxing them. “It’s not an ‘I hate rich people’ mindset,” said Dean, whose district is 82% working class. “It’s an ‘I want everyone to be rich’ mindset.”

Avoid identity politics

In the report, Iowa state Rep. Josh Turek, a Democrat whose district is 85% working class, said its critical for Democrats in rural districts to focus on local issues. Turek, who won in a county that President Donald Trump carried by 20 points, stressed that successful candidates steer clear of “culture war issues or identity politics.” 

Professor Johnson, who wrote the report with Bustos, acknowledged that some in the party won’t agree with this approach. But he noted that working-class voters have been a critical part of the Democratic coalition since President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s. And he added it is critical to win these voters back, if it wants to be a majority party. 

“These candidates, for the most part, have got to win Republican votes. They have to win Trump voters. We have an element to the party that doesn’t want to listen to folks that have to do that. Well, (if you don’t) you’re going to be in minority status for a long time. In a lot of these districts, people have to win over Republicans and Trump voters and they have done so successfully. So, we put the spotlight on them.”

Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told IT it goes beyond what Democrats choose to emphasize. He said the party needs to be open to fielding candidates in rural areas who are more conservative on social issues than their urban counterparts.   

And this does not always resonate with urban Democrats. 

“In some of these (election) post-mortems, you see some talking head or some of the kind of Democratic thought leaders online talk about how we need to moderate some of our stances. The thing they hear back from the grassroots often is, ‘What group are you going to throw under the bus to moderate?’ That’s something that the trans community, sadly right now, feels like they’re kind of bearing the brunt of.”

Carville agreed that the trans rights debate has become an albatross for Democrats, particularly those in rural areas.

“It got ginned up,” he said. “When we were using phrases like ‘defund the police,’ or ‘reparations’ or that kind of stuff, people were willing to believe other things about Democrats like we wanted to have males running in girls’ track meets or we wanted to have gender-neutral bathrooms. … as we recede from this identity stupidity, it’s going to become less and less potent. … This was a giant mistake. There’s no other way to say it.”

So, why are working-class, rural voters increasingly supporting Trump?

Johnson said much of it has to do with the president’s blunt rhetoric. 

“They like Trump because he talks in a very plain language, and he addresses issues that they care about. I go back to 2016 when he ran for president. I listened to him on satellite radio, and he was talking about trade and infrastructure. I remember thinking, that’s a message that’s going to appeal to a lot of blue-collar voters. He paid attention to issues that people out here care about. There’s a lot of criticism of his tariff policy, but the effects of these tariffs, so far, have not been as bad as what economists said. It shows that he’s trying to stand up for domestic industries, which, if you go to these working-class areas, that’s what a lot of people feel that we need to do.”

Jim Nowlan, a retired University of Illinois political science instructor, was more blunt.

“Trump is the evil genius who can appeal to small-town and rural folks. He says, ‘We’re going to solve the Ukraine problem on Day One.’ Well, you and I might laugh at that. But to the Trump base and to many Americans who find something attractive in Trump, they understand that he’s not going to solve it on Day One, but he’s going to try to solve it on Day One. … I think of myself as a moderate Republican. But I just can’t abide Trump. I’m afraid that the Democratic Party doesn’t have a message that is attractive to rural voters.”  

No litmus tests

The concerns of voters in rural areas are distinct, Bill Houlihan, head of the Sangamon County Democratic Party, said.

“Let’s be honest, people in rural districts are more conservative. They’re more moderate. Being pro-choice is not a top 10 issue for them,” he said. 

To win in rural areas, the party may need to support candidates who are more conservative on social issues than their urban peers, he said. 

“If you’re a (Democratic) candidate for office and you’re trying to win the majority, there should not be a litmus test. I just don’t believe there should be on any issue. I don’t think it helps recruitment. It scares some people away. They don’t understand it, so they decide not to run,” Houlihan said. “But those that decide to run need room to have some flexibility. If they are 70% right on every issue, man, that’s a hell of a lot better than a Republican is when you go to try to pass a piece of legislation.”

Former U.S. Rep. Glenn Poshard, a southern Illinois Democrat who ran unsuccessfully for Illinois governor in 1998, said the party has to be more open to socially conservative candidates if it wants to prevail in rural communities. 

“There are deeply felt religious beliefs around issues. If you start saying to people, ‘You can’t be a Democrat unless you hold to this particular thing,’ you’re asking people to desert a basic tenet of their faith. To do that, people are going to say, ‘Wait a second, what’s more important to me here? My faith in my church? Or the political party?’ And when you force people to make those kind of choices, they’re going to desert you.”  

Poshard, who was the last pro-life Democrat to be nominated for Illinois governor, said abortion rights are a good example of an issue where many voters feel forced to choose between their religious beliefs and the Democratic Party.  

He said the party needs to move away from a litmus test for candidates on such issues.

Axlerod agreed, noting that Franklin Roosevelt passed the New Deal with a coalition of Southern segregationists, Northern unionists and Northern liberals. 

“They were very much unified by economic issues but had vastly different opinions on those very important fundamental matters,” he said.

Axlerod added, “It is a losing proposition to demand complete ideological purity on cultural issues and any issues other than the most fundamental, which is that everyone who wants to work hard deserves a fair shot in this country to get ahead and share in its prosperity and growth.” 

This article appears in September 4-10, 2025.