White Rural Rage has generated significant discussion and diverse opinions among critics, reflecting its complex and provocative examination of rural America’s political landscape. Critics have praised the book for its unflinching analysis of the disenfranchisement and alienation rural white voters feel, providing a comprehensive look at how these sentiments influence broader political trends. Supporters commend Schaller and Waldman for their detailed research and willingness to address uncomfortable truths about the sociopolitical dynamics in rural areas. They argue that the book sheds necessary light on the structural and cultural issues contributing to The Disenfranchisement of Rural White Voters and The Rise of Anti-Democratic Tendencies and Political Violence.

However, the book has also faced criticism for its perceived methodological flaws and biases. Some reviewers argue that Schaller and Waldman rely too heavily on anecdotal evidence and selective data, potentially overstating the extent of rural white voters’ disenfranchisement and their impact on American democracy. Critics also point out that the book’s portrayal of rural voters as predominantly conservative and resistant to change oversimplifies a complex and diverse demographic with differing beliefs based on intersectional factors such as race, ethnicity, immigration status, religion, sex, and party identification, among others.