A few corrections:

1 - Congress makes laws, not the President (although he signs them).

2 - Congressional members are elected directly, not by the electoral college.

3 - The electoral college is not impacted by whether people are rural or urban. [0]

States can always choose to apply subsidies themselves. They all have different tax rates already [1], so subsidies are easy if they want [1].

[0] - https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine...

[1] - https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/wireless-taxes-cell...

Thank you! I have made edits to correct and refine the idea I was attempting to communicate.

>Their base votes for them because these Reps appeal to their feelings, even though the people they vote for are actively harming them.

You need to continue the logic here: So the democrats in shining white armor are here to help them out because they know better. This further antagonizes the republican base because worse than being destitute is to be dependent on government handouts.

On the united states being united: We've had a civil war. The big mistake a lot of folks make when looking at the united states is looking at them in a cohesive way. We aren't, we don't share common values, and only share laws that permit a common and efficient market (which includes defense and foreign policy.) Folks mostly choose to live in Missisippi/Texas vs Massachusetts/California. The social benefits and zeitgeist are very different and America is big enough to offer both styles of living.

I appreciate the assist, these are complex issues, and there are always a lot of points to unpack.

When Hillary Clinton ran for office, and said they were going to kill coal, lets see the entire quote:

> Clinton did tell a town hall audience in Columbus, Ohio in March that "we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." But that was part of a longer answer about the need to help blue-collar workers adjust. "We're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people," Clinton said. "Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on."

These people didn't want to hear that, because of the point you mentioned. They are angry and sad at their position, and they don't want help; they want a history that no longer exists. "We're going to bring coal back!" You cannot fix deeply held identity and beliefs with policy [1]. Also, it is a long slog to convince people it is okay to ask for and receive help, even government help. Like, take the help, government is all of us helping you.

[1] To be frank, I don't think you can fix identity and deeply held beliefs except through generational turnover and firewalls through boundaries, but I am open to citations if anyone can provide them.

I've only read one of your links so far but I thought I'd better jump in and add this point. What the US does both at home and with its foreign policy has a profound effect on many of us—its allies—yet we have no vote to help change things (sometimes I think we ought to become an extra state to rectify this).

Many supporters of the US, myself included, cringe at news like this. We watch in horror in an era when we need a strong and cohesive US more than ever.

This is remarkably clear thinking and serious analysis. Thank you for the insightful scholarly contribution!

Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it.