I have to say i probably agree with this take. My personal theory is Iowa was way bluer than it should be (when we look at it demographically) because of the outsized amount of attention it was getting in the primaries, kinda saturating the electorate to be informed and elastic. https://twitter.com/nikicaga/status/1358981500235055104

But hyperpartisanship and polarization is killing "elasticity" of voters pretty much everywhere, killing incumbency advantages, local appeal, etc, they matter less and less and only thing left is the capital letter next to the candidate's name.

You need to understand Trump was very bad for small and medium size farms, yet they stuck with him, indicating it's something else than economic issues driving these voters, and that means this shift is unlikely to change with "rural/farm" oriented policies by the democrats since

the divide is likely ideological. This why is scoff at some of the "dems need to focus on rural areas !" people on ET, i really don't think dems can sell what these people are buying without betraying their D base.