> get the govt you vote for and these farmers are exhibit A for the saying 'elections have consequences'.

To be fair, that's exactly why the farmers started voting Republican in the first place, despite being traditionally Democrats. In the 90s they got the Democrats they voted for — and it ended badly. Once bitten, twice shy. And now that they have been twice bitten it is going to be a really tough choice in a two party system.

While you do make a great point that party brand means absolutely nothing and that at each election you need to closely examine the specific people you intend to elect, it is also easy to say that from a point of privilege where you can sit around writing stupid comments on the internet. It is not so easy to conduct that deep research when you have actual responsibilities in life. It is understandable why people latch onto a brand and judge it based on past performance.

Yeah, there's been (until this year) zero difference between the parties on economic/trade policy since 1992 when the Clinton campaign had "It's the economy, stupid" as its slogan to remind them the one thing that matters most in elections. Unfortunately, they, like the Bush Republicans, meant the stock market and global trade deals for their friends when they said "economy."

So if you were a typically conservative-ish farmer, you could vote for the party that was going to screw you economically and trash your culture, or the party that would screw you economically and maybe pretend to stand up for your culture sometimes. Not a happy choice, but if you were going to bother to vote, an easy one.