LSU expert in social and economic issues: Rural America’s unique struggles affect how it votes

LSU sociology professor Tim Slack uses his research and expertise to share a closer look at rural Americans’ lives and challenges as they prepare to vote in the 2024 election.

Oct 28, 2024

5 min

Tim Slack

An expert in social and economic issues, Professor Slack explains the unique struggles facing rural communities—like changes in jobs, health concerns, and population shifts.


In this Q&A, he clears up common misunderstandings about rural life, discusses the problems rural voters face, and explores how these issues may affect their votes in this important election.


What is your area of expertise?


I am a professor of sociology at LSU. My research coalesces around the areas of social stratification and social demography with an emphasis on geographic space and the rural-urban continuum as axes of difference. With my colleague Shannon Monnat (Syracuse University), I recently authored the book Rural and Small-Town America: Context, Composition, and Complexities, published by the University of California Press.


What are the key socio-economic challenges facing rural voters in this election?


Wow. Where to start? There are so many myths and misunderstandings about rural America.


One is that “rural” is synonymous with farming. To be sure, agriculture is a vital industry in terms of sustenance and national security. But technological advances and farm consolidation—the shift from many smaller farms to fewer larger farms—means most rural Americans don’t have direct economic ties to agriculture anymore.


The two largest sectors of employment in rural America today are services and manufacturing, respectively. A concern regarding the service sector is that it produces jobs that vary greatly in quality depending on people’s educational level; good professional jobs for the more educated and lower quality jobs—low wages, low hours, and few to any fringe benefits—for less educated folks. Those good professional jobs tend to be concentrated in urban areas (the emergence of remote work may reshape this in the future).


Manufacturing employment, which has historically been the “good jobs” sector for less educated people, has been in steady decline in terms of its share of jobs for the past 50 years. While people sometimes think of plant and factory work as urban, it has provided a larger share of jobs and earnings in rural America for decades. Deindustrialization is causing real pain in rural America: it is one thing for a plant to shut down in a large and diversified metropolis, but quite another when it is the lone “good jobs” employer in town.


Other big issues are the challenges posed by population aging and youth out-migration in rural America, as well as increasing racial and ethnic diversity. Another is the factors underlying the “rural mortality penalty”—that rural America has higher death rates and lower life expectancy than urban America.


These are all pressing issues.



What role will rural voters play in this close presidential race, and what may sway their vote?


Rural voters will play a key role in this election, assuming the margins end up being as close as they have been in the last two presidential cycles. A persuasive working-class message and a sense that rural people and places are seen—that they aren’t just “flyover country”—will help. Given that the two leading candidates hail from New York City and San Francisco, both picked running mates with a rural and small-town backstory as a nod to that constituency.


All of that said, the power of the rural vote should not be overstated. The contemporary U.S. is mainly an urban society, so the winning candidate will ultimately pull most of their votes from cities and suburbs.


Can you discuss any recent research on how rural voting patterns have evolved over the last few election cycles?


The short answer is that the rural vote has been steadily trending Republican for decades. The last presidential election in which voters in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties were essentially equal regarding party preferences was in 1976 when Jimmy Carter was elected. Since that time, the percentage of nonmetro votes for the Republican candidate has trended steadily upward. In 2020, roughly two-thirds of the nonmetro vote went to Donald Trump, more than 20 points higher than in metro counties.


That said, rural voters are not a monolith. The flip side of the 2020 numbers above is that roughly 1 in 3 voters in nonmetro counties cast their ballot in the other direction. And rural places with majority Black, Latino, and Indigenous populations often vote in the Democratic column. Moreover, you have political legacies particular to certain places that matter—like the left-leaning Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota (today the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party or DFL) or the rural state of Vermont electing a socialist to the U.S. Senate (Bernie Sanders). So, there are notable deviations from the aggregate trend.


“ The problems and prospects facing rural America in the 21st century matter for this nation. Personally, I would love to see a less ideological and more pragmatic politics emerge that puts that in focus. ”

How do political campaigns target rural voters, and how effective do you think these strategies are?


This is a bit outside my area of expertise, and I want to stay in my lane. But I will raise two issues.


One is what the political scientist Katherine Cramer has called “rural consciousness”: a belief that rural areas are ignored by policymakers, that rural areas do not get their fair share of resources, and that rural folks have distinct values and lifestyles that are misunderstood and disrespected by city folks. The message from some quarters that rural people vote “against their own self-interest” or vote “the wrong way,” essentially that they are rubes, feeds into this.


The other issue is that much of rural America is a local “news desert.” That is, there simply are no sources of comprehensive and credible local news. So, people rely on cable TV news or—if they have access to broadband—the internet. The result is that all news becomes national, even when those issues may have little bearing on local life. It used to be said that “all politics is local,” but in today’s media environment, that is increasingly untrue.


Is there anything else you want to add?


I would just emphasize that common myths and misunderstandings about rural America run deep. Rural America is not a paragon of stability, social and economic change abounds. And rural America is not a monolith, it is socially and regionally diverse. The problems and prospects facing rural America in the 21st century matter for this nation. Personally, I would love to see a less ideological and more pragmatic politics emerge that puts that in focus.




Link to original article here. 


Connect with:
Tim Slack

Tim Slack

Professor

Dr. Slack's is an expert on social, economic, and demographic change with a special focus on rural people and places.

Social Stratification & PovertyCommunity & EnvironmentSocial DemographyRural Sociology
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Louisiana State University

AI In Action Symposium featured image

1 min

AI In Action Symposium

The AI In Action Symposium, hosted by the LSU E. J. Ourso College of Business, brings together expert voices at the heart of the AI revolution to explore how they have successfully navigated this evolving landscape. The 2026 symposium focuses on the practical implications of AI in business, including hiring AI-ready talent, ensuring responsible and ethical use, and exploring the challenges of implementing AI across both large enterprises and small startups. Speakers Attendees will hear from Louisiana leaders and national AI experts, including… Secretary Bruce Greenstein of the Louisiana Department of Health April Wiley, Senior Vice President at Community Coffee Robert Veit and Julian Tandler from Scale Team Six, a San Francisco-based business accelerator Dr. Tonya Jagneaux, who leads medical analytics at the Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System (FMOLHS) Hunter Thevis, president and co-founder of Lafayette-based S1 Technology …and many more! Details March 20, 2026, 8:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Registration deadline is March 15. Held on the LSU A&M Campus, in the LSU Student Union Register at lsu.edu/business/ai-symposium Discount available for LSU System employees

War in Iran: Impact on Oil Prices featured image

2 min

War in Iran: Impact on Oil Prices

As global markets respond to escalating tensions in Iran, energy prices are once again at the center of international concern. For insight into what this conflict could mean for oil markets, consumers and the broader economy, media can turn to Greg Upton, executive director and associate research professor at the LSU Center for Energy Studies. An expert at the intersection of energy and environmental economics, Upton studies how geopolitical disruptions, supply constraints and policy decisions influence oil prices and downstream economic impacts. As instability in the Middle East threatens global supply chains, he can provide context on potential price volatility, implications for Louisiana’s energy sector and what higher crude prices may mean for gasoline costs and inflation in the United States. Upton has contributed to more than 40 academic publications and has presented his research to over 200 industry, government and academic audiences. He has testified before committees in both chambers of the Louisiana Legislature and a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives. A frequent voice in national and local media, Upton has been quoted or cited more than 250 times, including by the The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today and NPR. In addition to his research, Upton teaches in LSU’s MBA program and in the Department of Economics and Environmental Sciences, helping prepare the next generation of leaders to navigate complex energy and environmental challenges. For timely, data-driven analysis on the impact of oil price fluctuations amid the ongoing conflict in Iran, Dr. Greg Upton is available for interviews and expert commentary.

Op-Ed: Crypto innovation needs stability, not shortcuts featured image

3 min

Op-Ed: Crypto innovation needs stability, not shortcuts

After months of bipartisan negotiations, Congress continues to debate crypto market structure legislation, though questions remain whether common sense investor protections will be included in a new federal framework for digital assets. These proposals address fundamental questions aimed at providing needed clarity for digital asset markets, including around agency jurisdiction, and trust and confidence for mainstream adoption of modern markets. At times, the negotiations fractured over stablecoin yields, while provisions addressing decentralized finance and developer liability and the importance of investor safeguards have proven similarly divisive. The GENIUS Act prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest, recognizing such payments transform digital tokens into bank deposits requiring regulatory oversight. Platforms opposing restrictions on stablecoin yields prioritize business models generating revenue by offering deposit-like products without deposit-like regulation – an unfair regulatory arbitrage that disadvantages prudentially supervised banks, drains funding from local lending and introduces systemic risk without corresponding accountability. While these complex issues require careful calibration, there is no substitute for keeping investor-first reforms at the center of market structure legislation and prioritizing clear rules and robust investor safeguards that ensure digital assets benefit everyday investors and that America strengthens its economic competitiveness and leads the next era of financial innovation. Such impasses reflect a pattern where narrow interests prevail over broader economic considerations. Platforms opposing restrictions on stablecoin yields prioritize business models generating revenue by offering deposit-like products without deposit-like regulation. Banking institutions recognize that unregulated competition operating under lower-cost structures will drain funding from local lending. Both positions are economically rational for the parties involved. Neither serves the public interest in financial stability. Likewise, opponents argue that regulation stifles innovation, especially in decentralized finance. But this conflates innovation with regulatory arbitrage. Genuine technological progress creates value by improving efficiency or reducing costs. Regulatory arbitrage extracts value by exploiting gaps between economically equivalent activities subject to different rules. The alternative claim – that existing securities laws suffice – ignores that those frameworks were designed for different market structures. Securities laws assume centralized issuers. Commodity regulations assume physical delivery. Digital assets often fit neither category cleanly, creating uncertainty that inhibits legitimate activity while failing to prevent abuse. The choice is not between perfect legislation and the status quo but between establishing clear rules now or waiting for the next crisis. Financial regulation written in crisis tends toward overcorrection that stifles markets for years. Regulation developed deliberately better balances stability with innovation. Both House and Senate committee versions share core elements providing needed clarity on agency jurisdiction, registration requirements and disclosure standards. International considerations reinforce urgency. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation provides comprehensive frameworks for issuers and service providers. Continued U.S. regulatory ambiguity cedes leadership to jurisdictions that may not share American economic interests. More immediately, delay allows risks to accumulate as digital assets become interconnected with traditional finance through retirement plans and institutional portfolios. Recent market failures demonstrate why regulatory clarity and investor safeguards matter. The 2022 collapse of crypto exchange FTX revealed an $8 billion dollar deficit in customer accounts, spreading losses to pension funds and individual retirement accounts. Investigators identified conflicts of interest and leverage that standard regulation would have prevented. When Silicon Valley Bank failed, one major stablecoin had 8% of reserves tied to that institution. The crisis resolved only because uninsured depositors received public support. These episodes reveal a pattern where institutions operating outside prudential supervision accumulate risks requiring public intervention. Markets function best when rules are clear, consistently enforced and apply equally to all participants. This principle applies whether the market involves energy commodities, agricultural credit or digital assets. Louisiana's economy depends on community banks that understand local conditions and maintain lending relationships through economic cycles. When regulatory gaps allow deposit flight to lightly supervised alternatives, these institutions lose capacity to serve small businesses and agricultural operations. Congress has made meaningful progress on consensus-driven legislation. Completing that work would provide clarity allowing legitimate innovation while preventing regulatory arbitrage that creates systemic risk. The alternative is waiting for the next crisis to demonstrate why such frameworks were necessary.

View all posts