home

How Big Is Appalachia Anyway?

This DKos post argues that Barack Obama's inability to connect with white working class voters is limited to Appalachia. That is incorrect in my view and I will discuss why I think so below.

But the question is begged - is that not a problem in and of itself? The Appalachia Phenomenon is used to explain Obama's problem with white working class voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina and improbably, Maryland. That is 7 states. One is comfortably Democratic, Maryland. Four are solidly Republican, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky (though Bill Clinton won it). But the last two? Ah, Ohio and Pennsylvania. They decide Presidential elections. Even the Appalachian Phenomenon gives serious cause for worry. But the Appalachian Theory does not explain everything. More . . .

The expanded Appalachian Theory holds that:

In the 19th century, migrants from Appalachia moved west. People from Appalachia settled and put their stamp on the Ozark region of Missouri and Arkansas, on Oklahoma and the southern Plains, on North Texas, and eventually they were a big part of the initial growth of Southern California.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Appalachian Theory now explains Obama's problems with white working class voters in Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma as well. Of those, Oklahoma has long been a solid Republican state. But Missouri and Arkansas have been battlegrounds. So now we have Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Arkansas explained by the Appalachian Theory. This is a problem we must overcome if the Dems are going to have a good chance to win the White House in November.

But I do not accept that the Appalachian theory addresses the full spectrum of this phenomenon. Of course we have the Southern Problem which effects Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Mississippi.

But that still does not explain all of Obama's white working class problem. Let's look at three other states: Arizona, Florida and Indiana. In Arizona, Clinton won the white vote by 53-38 (she won Latinos 55-41.) In Florida, Clinton won whites by 53-23 (she won Latinos by 59-30). In Indiana, Clinton won whites 60-40. Are these three states in Appalachia too? Need to hear more? Ok.

In Massachusetts, Clinton won whites 58-40 (she won Latinos 56-36). In Rhode Island, Clinton won whites 63-37. In New Jersey, Clinton won whites 66-31.

Unless the entire country East of the Mississippi is now referred to as Appalachia, I think this proposed theory explains very little and indeed is part of the entire Ostrich approach we now see from Obama blogs. It is just plain silly now.

I believe Obama can do better. I believe his problem goes beyond race issues. Obama is indeed the wine track candidate, the candidate of the Creative Class (and of course African Americans.) But he must do better - with white women, with the white working class, with seniors and with Latinos. I wrote about this in February, March and April and Obama is not doing any better now. Indeed he seems to be doing worse. This is a problem that MUST be addressed for November. Pretending that saying "Appalachia" will solve it is no answer.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama Disses Boomers Who Opposed Vietnam War | Obama to Head to Missouri Seeking Rural Support >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He's a wine track candidate, (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    if you exclude all of the wine-trackers who aren't WASPs. . . For example, he lost Jews 2:1 in PA. I think you would be hard pressed to describe Jews as "Appalachian migrants."

    The Hillbilly's ... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    ...of Egypt?

    Parent
    That's Southern IL. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    stop it... (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    you're making me laugh and cry at the same time! :-)

    Seriously...I am so glad people are finally realizing that terminology doesn't really matter when it comes to his problem. Just admit he has a problem connecting with a certain demographic and go from there.

    Of course, the time to do this was before he started his run for office IMHO.

    But what do I know, I'm just a 40-year-old liberal Jewish female opera singer web designer Bubba with a Master's Degree who's speaking from under the Obama bus.

    Parent

    You qualify as "Creative Class" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:31:19 PM EST
    pursuant to Wiki article---got to make money being creative; so, I doubt the opera singer part would suffice.

    Parent
    dont worry madam (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    as a former art major who has made my living in some from of art or design my whole life . .
    welcome to bubba hood.
    we like opera singers.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#67)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    I get paid for singing, although not always in an operatic setting.

    So there. ;-)

    Parent

    Well when we need entertainment.... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:32:12 PM EST
    ...in our cramped quarters under the bus, you can sing for us. ;-)

    Parent
    Only if she's not fat ! (none / 0) (#63)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    .....Sorry, tasteless "fat lady sings" joke. I couldn't help myself. I will now go sit facing the corner for a 5 minute time-out.

    Parent
    D'oh! (none / 0) (#68)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    (no, I'm not fat. that stereotype is not as applicable now in the days of the TeeVee.)

    Parent
    Although Your Voice Is Muffled By The Bus (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    we hear you loud and clear Madamab.  Seriously, if the Dem leaders are the least bit aware, they need to toss obama under the bus and run with Hillary in the GE.  It will take a miracle for obama to make up this much ground.  It won't happen as he continues to insert his foot in his mouth at every turn.

    Parent
    The Moses Gap. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:03:12 PM EST
    My demographic: (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by magnetics on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    Mixed race family (Ashkenaz, Aframerican); two Ph. D's, one professorship; 12 patents in medical imaging (creative?); multiple publications in peer reviewed academic/technical journals.

    Both solidly for Hillary.  

    The Aframerican member was raised by a grandmother, who herself had grown up in a milieu in which slavery was a living memory.

     Barack Obama may wish to claim the AA banner, and he certainly has the votes for it, but he is not (despite his many virtues) a true product of the black American experience.  This is not a cut on him, but it's a fact worth remembering, and should (IMHO) be categorized a chicken in search of a roost.

    Parent

    You are the arbiter? Jeez (none / 0) (#179)
    by contrarian1964 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:41:21 PM EST
    You are the arbiter of the AA experience?  My god, what is up with this blog that this comment is celebrated and not challenged?

    Parent
    How is this not correct? It is. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:42:46 AM EST
    Obama is from the black American heritage of slavery only in that he is descended from slaveholders.

    He wrote books about trying to fit into that heritage, because he did not come from it.  You may have heard of his books?

    This was held against Obama, commented upon by many AAs -- until after he won Iowa and became the media darling.  I don't think the media would have been comfortable at all with a descendant of slaves.

     

    Parent

    'Twould make an interesting (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    documentary.

    Parent
    You mean work of fiction (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:22:26 PM EST
    Gullah (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    Interestingly, Atlanta is on the piedmont of the foothills of the Appalachian mountains, and went solidly O.

    Parent
    not a suprise if you know the city (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:40:20 PM EST
    it is to the rest of Georgia as an air lock is to open space.

    Parent
    I am there and this is true. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Burned on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:05:08 PM EST
    But the CDC employees that I know went solidly for Clinton. :)

    Parent
    The CDC rocks! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Fabian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:10:13 PM EST
    You can tell them I said that.

    I was never all that interested in public health until I worked in a hospital.  Then it became obvious to me that Bad Things happen to Real People, not Other People.  

    Parent

    The CDC knows that bad things can happen (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Burned on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    to EVERYONE unless someone who is ready comes in and fixes it fast.
    They are somewhat depressed. I'll tell them you said they rock.

    Parent
    Urban Demographics (none / 0) (#185)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST
    Check these demographics

    Being factual is different than being racist(for anyone tempted to waste a comment.)

    Atlanta Population

    White 33%
    African American 61%
    etc.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#192)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:55:26 AM EST
    I hope you're not implying that all WASPs are wine trackers. That's a ridiculous myth.

    No offense intended at all but we practice far too much ethnic stereotyping.

    Many, if not all, of the stereotypes are grossly inaccurate.

    Parent

    How about May 20? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by lambert on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:20:22 PM EST
    "Before November?"

    Obama's self-coronation would seem like an excellent time.

    Why wait? Though I won't be holding my breath.

    If you cross reference... (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    ...the caucus states with the Obama map you get a fair idea of why he got such lopsided supertuesday results. You have to remember that Clinton won the popular vote that day but came in second with the delegate count.  with florida and michigan out of commission it was easy enough to see that obama and the media would spin it into a string of wins for Obama. Lopsided wins in caucus staes wiped out her vote count and successful statewide performances in massively populous states.

    That's as good as the terrain maps showing Clinton winnning the Appalachian mountains.

    She also won the back country in California fo rwhat it's worth--The Sierras.

    He played the Bush map (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    Yes. (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:29:49 PM EST
    very much so. I'm still steaming over the way the delegate system/coupled with activist caucuses  was such a force multiplier for Obama.

    His team is so sharp it'll cut every one.  he's trying to distance himself from the antiwar activist/fans he's been dependent on.  Ordinary People will notice this contradiction eventually.

    Parent

    Ordinary people have. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST
    The media, the blogosphere, and the narrow Obama coalition are too busy congratulating themselves how awesomely superior they are to those eeeeevil Clintons to notice.

    Which will the SD's listen to?

    We'll see.

    Parent

    It took me until October (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:34:48 PM EST
    when he threw me under the bus. Does he think people won't notice?

    Parent
    I think women were left at the (5.00 / 8) (#91)
    by Fabian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    bus stop.

    At least, I've never felt any reason to climb on board.  About the time that OH finally got to vote was when Edwards dropped out and the Hillary Hatin' went from fringe to mainstream.  It helped to push me off the fence.  Clinton's health insurance plan was the real decider, though.  I'm no knee jerk voter.  Obama just didn't offer me anything to vote FOR.  I do Issues, not shiny rhetoric.

    The shiny rhetoric might have worked, if only the Obama supporters had stuck to the happy, shiny rhetoric instead of spending their time coming up with more reasons why Hillary was Teh Evil.  Authoritarians can do the cognitive dissonance shuffle, but I can't.


    Parent

    that early string (none / 0) (#157)
    by christinep on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    By negating Fla. & Mich. early on, Clinton's victories were not only minimized, but any opportunity for something like momentum was stagnated for 6 weeks.  Thats a big "turning point." Even in mid to late April, a Florida-Michigan resolution would have psychologically and otherwise propelled Clinton. People have said so often that it is all about the math. I keep saying that it is all about the map.  The electoral map. (Just keep looking at those states and playing with the electoral numbers...and, add some probability--not possibility--theory.)

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:23:58 PM EST
    This reminds me of all the comments I've seen from Obama supporters saying that Hillary always wins the late deciders because people who wait until Election Day to make up their minds are "low-information voters."

    Even if that's true, does that somehow make it not a problem?  Are we going to send all these people to the University of Phoenix before the general election?  We all know what Adlai Stevenson said about being the thinking man's candidate.

    later voters (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    have MORE knowledge of Obama than Iowa voters had.

    Parent
    But, according to polls, the (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    Iowa voters are still supporting Obama.  This will be the definitive well-researched book on this election system.  You read it here first.  

    Parent
    The well researched book will be VA and WI (none / 0) (#65)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:42:09 PM EST
    I'm kinda stunned that no one (to my knowledge) has done an in depth look/ study of voters in WI and VA and what happened there compared to other states.  There are many theories for what happened (momentum, religiosity, ethnic origins), but none of them fully explain how Obama connected with voters in those states, and whether the changes in the dynamics of the race since then have led to some of those who voted for him in those states to change their views looking towards November.  

    If Democrats and the Obama campaign can fully understand what happened in those 2 states, it will go a long way towards helping in November.  To this point though, I haven't seen a plausible, rigorous analysis or explanation for those states.  

    Parent

    the answer is simple.. (none / 0) (#94)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    complete lack of any real campaign by Clinton until after Super Tuesday, while Obama had organized those states.

    I mean, lets get real... Clinton does go from a double digit win in New Jersey one week to a double digit loss in Maryland a week later because of Obama's ability to connect with white voters in MD.

    Obama didn't do anything but have his campaign show up in VA and WI in the absence of the Clinton campaign.

    Parent

    Clinton won Whites in MD (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by thomphool on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:07:15 PM EST
    by 10, lost them in VA the same day, with similar levels of attention payed to both states.  Lack of attention had something to do with it, but does not explain the entire phenomenon.  Not by a long shot.  In order to really understand what happened.  Maryland's primary being 37% AA probably had a little bit to do with Clinton losing by double digits there.

       

    Parent

    One difference between (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    MD and VA is that VA had an open primary and MD had a closed one. I have no idea if that accounts for the difference in the white vote.

    Parent
    There was a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:23:01 PM EST
    misinformation going on at teh time about Bill, and lots of MSNBC led historicity about Obama.

    Parent
    Edwards campaigned in IA this year (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    and in 2003.  

    Parent
    I doubt it (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    Iowa basically got to live and breathe the candidates for several months.  Iowa is a caucus which tends to favor high-information types.  The knowledge that Iowans accumulated during their primary doesn't necessarily accrue to the benefit of every voter in the subsequent states.

    In fact, it seems to me like the day after the Iowa cacucus is traditionally the day when most of America wakes up and realizes there's some sort of campaign going on.

    Parent

    The early states (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    rendered a split decision.

    Parent
    They got no negatives about (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:24:03 PM EST
    Obama.  Whereas Edwards was being ridiculed and marginalized and Clinton was being harranged.

    Parent
    Somebody mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    signing them all up for degrees at Matchbox University.

    "A degree in every pot".

    Parent

    that would correctly be: (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by cpinva on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    "match book university". i know this because i am an honors graduate of the "papa doc duvalier school of tact & diplomacy, port au prince campus", advertised exclusively on fold-out match book covers.

    the real problem, BTD, is that no, sen. obama can't do better, he hasn't a clue how to. he's had a year to figure it out, yet appears to have little, if any, inclination to do so. a reasonable person, confronted with a similar set of facts, would have to conclude sen. obama just doesn't care.

    this "appalachian theory" rests on a foundation of shifting sand. the mountain chain and trail run for approx. 2100 miles, from GA through ME. i believe the sen. won GA, SC, NC, VA and DC, all of which have direct connections to the appalachians. of course, they share another common element: they all have a wildly out of proportion % of the AA community, who pretty much all voted for him. but, they alone couldn't have given him victory, some other groups had to provide him with votes as well.

    the last time i checked the map (about 5 minutes ago), OH, IN, NV, FL, CA, TX, etc. are not part of appalachia, and have little connection to it, the obama campaign's unsupported assertions to the contrary.

    maybe, just maybe, the people who didn't vote for him just don't like him, or have no faith that he understands their issues, and will work on their behalf.

    just a thought.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    I heard Stevenson's great quote (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:26:31 PM EST
    on NPR this morning.  

    Parent
    What about all the working class white who's... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    ...ancestors never passed through appalachia? Are we going to conveniently forget them? But then I don't really get this way of thinking, is it just a way of trying to reassure people that its only "bubba's" they are trying to "purge" from the Democratic party?

    Darn I Thought It Was All The Grannies Fault (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:25:18 PM EST
    I guess all the grannies have moved to Appalachia.

     

    Nope, they apparently (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST
    migrated FROM Appalachia. heh.

    Parent
    This week (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by joanneleon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    they're in West Virginia.  A few weeks ago they were in Pennsylvania.  

    Boy, those Grannies get around.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM EST
    I read at the blogs that Clinton's win in Pennsylvania was meaningless because PA is supposedly her demographic perfect storm.

    Now I'm hearing the exact same thing about WV!  Sheesh.

    Parent

    Not to worry (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST
    Those 7 (or eight) extra states are all prime Obama territory.

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:59:30 PM EST
    didnt see any teevee or blogs over the weekend.
    where did the 57 state thing come from.
    its great.


    Parent
    See these (none / 0) (#112)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:10:20 PM EST
    Too Damn Funny! (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by flashman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:14:57 PM EST
    I was going to make a joke; but I can't make this any funnier.  Well, he moved the Great Lakes to OR, so I guess he can create more states. :)

    Parent
    oh dear (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    (thanks)

    Parent
    Wait for it (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by joanneleon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    They're on their way to Kentucky!  On buses, headed out tomorrow night!  

    Go Grannies!

    Good thing they're relatively slow movers.  Walkers and such, ya know.  I don't think they can make it all the way to Oregon in time for that primary.

    Parent

    And yet NC (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:53:10 PM EST
    was totally devastating for Clinton!

    LOL

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by IzikLA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:24:55 PM EST
    If only the same attention was paid to his win in NC.  Instead it became the end for Clinton, and his glaring problems there were all but ignored.

    Parent
    It's very possible! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nycstray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    They could be traveling around influencing other Grannies. After all, NY rural farmers are  ;)

    Parent
    The grannies (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:23:22 PM EST
    Most important, the "grannies" vote.  Now, it will be interesting to see what the granpas do...will they identify with McCain? The other day, when a spokesman for McCain responded to the "loss of bearings" Obama claim with variations on "looky, looky...ageism, ageism," it reminded me of Jesse Jackson Jr claiming racism by the Clintons.  So, maybe McCain will turn the tables on baiting?!?

    Parent
    This reminds me of (none / 0) (#187)
    by janarchy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:57:29 PM EST
    a Monty Python sketch about the Hell's Grannies. Bands of roving grannies terrorizing the streets in search of a good time (and apparently voting booths!)

    Parent
    How can he do better? (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST
    By crafting a message that appeals to them.  

    The idea that his skin color prohibits him from doing that is pure BS.  Which is why I keep saying we need to get away from categorizing these people as nothing more or less than "white voters".  It not only insults them and the kinds of things they think about when they make such a decision, but it also, more importantly, denies Obama access to the solution!

    I can snarkily refer to them as "smart voters interested in solutions" but apparently I should stop doing that because that implies that Obama supporters aren't smart.

    But I will still put it like this.

    The idea that his inexperience and inspiration/transformation based rhetoric (as opposed to solutions based rhetoric) simply doesn't impress everyone might be something worth looking at.

    Gods forbid!


    Exactly!! (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:28:27 PM EST
    that is why I push back against this Appalachia meme.

    "All is well" is not what we need on this. All is NOT well.

    Parent

    They still think (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    he's going to win Idaho, Utah, Georgia, and South Carolina.

    Parent
    Don't forget Kansas! (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    (and Poland!)

    Parent
    Who knows? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:31:32 PM EST
    he needs to hold Ohio and PA to feel good about this.

    He can I think. It just needs some work.

    Parent

    He's shown absolutely no inclination (5.00 / 11) (#66)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    to do this work.

    And, I'd like to point out that, as with Katrina, this is not about race, it's about CLASS.  To push this Appalachian theme only alienates them further.  You cannot at once win over a demographic while you perceive them as an "other."

    It's also classic excuse time: it's not Obama's fault, it's these racist, low information voters who cling to God and guns.  I have to say that some of my redneck kin are some of the most progressive, live -and-let-live folk I know.  All they care about is government doing its job by keeping them safe and looking out for their pocketbooks.

    Parent

    Keep Us On The Right Track (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by flashman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:18:41 PM EST
    with your keen insight. :)

    Parent
    I really should just consider it (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    A small victory in and of itself just to get the whole thing redefined as something other than a function of race or gender.  That it's a function of message.

    But at that point, while Obama should at the very least TRY to change his message, we still haven't touched the idea that it's also a function of CONFIDENCE.  So don't be surprised if he still has the same problem after changing his message.

    This is, perhaps, something that an Obama supporter/strategist has thought of, and it's why, if one were to consider that he's doomed either way, that may be why they might try to shame some folks into voting for him, anyway.

    Which will backfire of course.  Badly.

    He has to at least try to change his message.  If one cares about the Democratic Party, he has to try.

    You know my deal.

    The entire primary was conducted as if a baseball team was looking at a player and strictly focussed on how many tickets would be sold with that player on the team, not on how well the player would catch the ball, hit the ball, and throw the ball.

    Parent

    Shame... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    that may be why they might try to shame some folks into voting for him, anyway.

    Which will backfire of course.  Badly.

    will not work, as you said.

    Shame for not voting for a democrat, maybe.  But it never worked before (Nader, etc.)  Many Naderites continue to be unapologetic.

    Obama would have to convince people he's the best person for the job when many of us already disagree with that.


    Parent

    There is middle ground (none / 0) (#180)
    by contrarian1964 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:44:07 PM EST
    ...between All is well and All is lost.

    This blog strikes me as being in "all is lost" territory.  I think venting dominates here - in the comment threads.  

    Parent

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:29:26 PM EST
    That's it, exactly.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:31:26 PM EST
    it is a subset of the overall liberal misconception that everyone who doesn't vote Democratic is either a defense contractor or else confused as to their own self-interest.

    Instead of wringing our hands trying to figure out why these people don't respond to our awesome message, maybe we should spend more time figuring out what message they would respond to.

    Parent

    I call them practical/pragmatic voters ;) (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by nycstray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    There just may not be a message (5.00 / 8) (#110)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    from Obama that would reassure my WV relatives -- and these are highly educated professors, both of them.  Very high-info voters; not blog types but voracious readers of every form of print media.  One is a native of WV, from an immigrant mining family, the other now has been there for decades.

    But in talking to them today, they're excited about Clinton's appearance in their college town today.  They could tell me exactly when was the last time a candidate came there (decades ago).  

    And they said that she would get the votes there because everything that is needed to be known about her is known, no surprises -- but that it's clear there is more to come out about Obama.

    Great people, great town, gorgeous topography.  If you haven't seen WV, it's worth it.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    Which was part of my second comment in this thread.

    Obama can't really do anything about who he is.  Black or white he's a jr. Senator who has never seen the inside of an executive office.   Which is why Camp Obama would rather racialize the issue which makes who he is a function of our prejudice instead of a function of his inexperience.

    Parent

    WV is (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:33:44 PM EST
    a breathtakingly beautiful state (at least the part that hasn't yet been destroyed by mountaintop removal).  And I say that as a proud Vermonter who knows from beautiful landscape.


    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by lilburro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    Obama bloggers would rather condemn the many, many racists hidden away in the demographics of a Clinton victory.  It's the ultimate strawman.  


    Parent
    Very true. (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    Pretending that saying "Appalachia" will solve it is no answer.

    And it won't solve it in November either.  Does he actually know how to appeal to those other groups?  I keep waiting for him to say something appealing, but instead he alienates them further. He has to win them over if he really wants to win.

    Sadly, I think he thinks everyone will rally to him when he and McCain start attacking each other.  But why should anyone do that?  There's no loyalty there, no love lost.

    Why? (none / 0) (#42)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    Sadly, I think he thinks everyone will rally to him when he and McCain start attacking each other.  But why should anyone do that?

    Because four more years of a Republican White House are scarier than a smooth-talking basketball-shooting dude named Obama.

    Hey, that's all I got!   Works for me.

    Parent

    I hope McCain (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by pie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    doesn't make "experience" the cornerstone of his campaign.

    /rolls eyes

    Parent

    I would have agreed with you (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    just a week or so ago.

    Obama has lost all my respect, and I have no confidence that he will be the strong progressive voice we need to truly make a difference in this country.

    After four years of his administration, I predict that the country would look very much the same as it does now, if not a bit worse. No universal health care or even reform. No progress on womens' rights, gay rights or any other social issues I care about (not even weeding out institutionalized racism). No progress on Iraq or Afghanistan. Only a small uptick in the economy if at all. On the environment, he's a fan of coal and nuclear power, which I'm not. And the Supreme Court? He thought Roberts was a fine choice originally.

    Why should I vote for that?

    HRC or nothing for me.

    Parent

    If all Obama has (none / 0) (#143)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    is "I'm not John McCain", he's in trouble.

    Parent
    Don't forget the Italian (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by vicsan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    Garlic-Nosed too. He needs to work on them and the Jewish community. His connection to Hamas isn't going to help him with the Jewish Community. Oh, and the Catholics seem to not be very fond of him either. Yes indeed. BO has to do better with may groups he's insulted. Add baby boomers to the list too.

    Who's left? Is there any one group, other than the AA community, he hasn't insulted/thrown under the bus?

    Creative Class? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    Yeah - and he needs them (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    to help him throw the rest under there. He can't do it alone.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#64)
    by joanneleon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:41:41 PM EST
    He threw a good bit of the Creative Class under the bus too when he dissed dkos on Fox News.  But they are in denial about it.

    Parent
    I hate to tell the Obama fans (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    but a good chunk of the Creative Class is Republican. Obama will always be able to find a media outlet. He can use one to dis the other whenever it suits his needs.

    Parent
    Creative class-- yet. (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:35:43 PM EST
    Their turn will come, and they'll all agree it's just great under there and the smell of exhaust is just like roses.


    Parent
    Politico did say the "cultural left" (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:50:47 AM EST
    was tossed under the bus today with the comment on our allegedly awful treatment of Vietnam veterans, all us antiwar protesters like me who then married one.  

    Isn't the "cultural left" the previous term for the "creative class"?  Or is the c.l.  older than the c.c.?  

    I think I need a daily update on the new terms, just so's I'll know who's who with me under the bus.

    Parent

    And there are lots of Italians (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:12:45 PM EST
    -- and proud of it -- in WV and other mining areas of Appalachia, many of them descendants of immigrants only a couple of generations ago.

    I'm related to one, so now I know several hundred of them -- and that took only a day!  And it was clear that they still are very sensitive to stereotyping of their ethnicity.  I would bet that just that comment of Wright's cost Obama a lot with this group alone.

    Parent

    Appalachia (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    is problematic for sure.  But I scour the 'net to see where my group, the Latinos, are in the grand scheme of things.

    The longer Obama ignores us, the easier it will be for McCain to reel in those votes, esp considering his stance on immigration.  

    So those rural white voters aren't going to be his only problem come GE if he's the nom.

    Hillary, notsomuch.  

    Indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    There's all this talk of white and black voters, as if we've all forgotten what the largest minority group in the United States is.

    Parent
    Hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    Men? :)

    Parent
    Statistically, true. (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Fabian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:04:10 PM EST
    I've been trying to figure out if there's some way to get women to vote as a cohesive bloc.

    Probably not.  It sure would be awesome to see politicians address women's concerns directly.  Even stranger, would be seeing men say "Hey, what about us!".

    Parent

    Lets not forget... (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:31:29 PM EST
    all the southern states where Obama tanked with white Democrats

    I really think that the "white working class" analysis is missing a key component -- that we are talking about Democratic voters here.  Decades of the GOP's Southern Strategy has pretty much gleaned out of the Democratic party the white working class voters who WON'T vote for an African American.  

    In other words, the vast majority of the people who we are talking about are people that would certainly consider voting for Obama if given a good reason to -- its not as if they feel some affinity with Hillary Clinton, who is after all a woman from upper-middle class suburban background, who graduated from Wellesley and Yale law,  Obama isn't giving them a reason, and Clinton has spent the better part of her life learning how to connect with their concerns.

    The other thing that kills me is that there is a lot of insularity/xenophobia in "small town America" that is separate and distinct from racism qua racism.  Small town people are both hospitable to and wary of "strangers" --- in a twon of 3000, everyone knows the mayor, and the police chief, and people in small towns want to "know" who they are voting for when it comes to President as well.   Obama, with his thin resume and amorphous agenda, isn't going to get the support of small town America against a "known" candidate just because he gives good rally.

    Appalachia and affinity for Hillary (5.00 / 9) (#104)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    I am an Appalachian by birth and heritage tho I spent my much of my childhood in Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, and Florida.  And my high school years were in NC.  I have tended to think one hallmark of Appalachia is mining.  Tennessee used to scour the mining towns for football players; back in segregated times, those boys were about the strongest, we thought. And I when I went to the Int'l Science Fair with my youngest, Pittsburgh felt like home--more so than SC does.  (And no one made fun of my accent.)

    But answering the remark that "It's not as if they feel some affinity with Hillary": you are incorrect there.  Hillary's campaign seems to me to be unique; she makes personal contact with her bloc.  I get emails: one was a suggestion to send Hillary an online Mother's Day card.  I did, and today I got an email thank you.  

    Ok, the personal touch is made possible by the internet.  (Tho' I have read that in Arkansas, Bill kept up with individual people.)  But to send a candidate a Mother's Day card?  Now, that's a campaign idea --oh, I don't even have words for it.  Would I have sent a Father's Day card to JFK or even to Bill?

    Hillary is different.  She is special.  She's intelligent, hardworking, all those other adjectives.  But something beyond--she has learned to connect with individual people.  The result is that many women, especially, have an affinity for her that transcends background, social, cultural, economic differences.  Turns out, she is the Great Uniter we have been waiting for.


    Parent

    you're right (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    But answering the remark that "It's not as if they feel some affinity with Hillary": you are incorrect there.  Hillary's campaign seems to me to be unique; she makes personal contact with her bloc

    you're right, of course.  I meant to write something like "natural affinity" not just affinity, and in rewriting the sentence left out the word.

    M point was that Hillary Clinton is not a born "Bubba".   When she met Bill Clinton, she was probably about as capable of connecting with white, working class voters as Barack Obama is today.  She probably "understood" them then the same way that Obama does today -- from sociology class.

    Clinton has been working at this for so long that its no longer "work" -- she's completely relaxed and unselfconscious in every environment.  

    Hillary Clinton is Meryl Streep.  Barack Obama is Steve Gutenberg.

    Parent

    You forget that she comes from (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:53:37 AM EST
    the working class -- her grandparents in Pennsylvania.  Her father only got to college on a football scholarship.  And his early years, her early years, were not prosperous while he was building his business; they made it into the middle class -- but she grew up with those grandparents every summer, too.

    Bill and Arkansas taught her about Southern working class, but she knows Northern working class from her own family.

    Parent

    Lukasiak nails it again (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:41:18 PM EST
    O

    Parent
    Also include half of Al and GA in Appalachia (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:32:03 PM EST
    I grew up understanding we were "in the shadow of the last mountain in the Appalachians" hundreds of miles south of North Carolina in East South Central Alabama on the Georgia line.

     The people, the culture, the language and even the genetic memory is Appalachian. In a hot Scrabble game we could always come up with odd words from Ancient Early Languages of the now British Isles.  They regularly popped out from some deep tribal memory so we had to use large old Oxfords as the official game dictionary!

    The young 11 year old boy in West Virginia who sold his bike and video games to raise $440 to hand to Bill to give to Hillary for the campaign would be right at home in any of the Appalachian area!  Does Hillary's victory mean as much to us?  How much are we willing to act like it?


    What a wonderful story -- that boy (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    is sending me back to Hillary Clinton's site to contribute, too.  A kid who can leave Bill Clinton speechless is one to watch!

    Parent
    Draw a line from Pine Mountain in SWC Georgia (none / 0) (#79)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:52:25 PM EST
    Include all of the territory north of Montgomery-Selma area over to near the Mississippi border. This line marks the end of the Appalacians.

     That area covers the majority of the  populations  of Alabama and Georgia.

     The majority of Obama voters live south of the end of the Appalachians, except for the obvious urban pockets in Atlanta and Birmingham, for example.

    Parent

    Lost in the mess... (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    ... of Florida in 2000 was the fact that if Gore had carried West Virginia, as almost every Democrat had done recently, and its measly five electoral votes, he would have won.

    West Virginia is not irrevocably red. We can't just keep giving up on these states and writing them off as hopelessly low-income, prejudiced voters.

    Right, WV isn't that red (none / 0) (#138)
    by flashman on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    and I don't know why ppl here keep saying it is.

    Parent
    Interesting Maps (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Petey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:59:06 PM EST
    Worth checking out Electoral-Vote.com's maps today to see the extent of Obama's problems.

    Clinton 280 - McCain 241

    Obama 237 - McCain 290

    I was just thinking....uh-oh (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    It's easier for the Washington establishment supporting Obama to make a deal with superdelegates to endorse him than for Obama to actually win the general.

    Parent
    I cant look (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    I will take your word for it.

    Parent
    I don't see any way that Obama can (5.00 / 8) (#106)
    by chancellor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:05:24 PM EST
    correct this because I think Obama, himself, is the problem. He's going to be painted with all the same negatives as John Kerry and then some. The effeminate-effete tag fits around his neck all too well, especially up against John McCain.

    I don't think that it matters what speeches he makes if voters think that the words don't match up with the persona. The Repubs will paint John McCain as the Marlboro Man, and they'll come up with some description for Obama equivalent to the "Breck Girl." Oddly enough, it's the woman in this race who's populist speeches are the believable ones, because she's the one seen as having intestinal fortitude.

    Maybe I'm feeling simple today (5.00 / 10) (#113)
    by suisser on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:10:45 PM EST
    but it seems that asking what Obama can do now is asking a pretty fundamental question a bit too late.  
    If you run on the personality cult and many people don't respond positively to your personality, it's pretty much tough noogies.  

    My take? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Fabian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:24:25 PM EST
    I hope Obama has a better plan for the GE, because this strategy is tissue thin.  Even the most "wooden", publicly awkward politician can run on the issues.  A gifted, charismatic politician can run on both persona and the issues and probably should - switching to whatever works best for a given constituency.  But just running on persona only works if the competition doesn't sabotage the carefully constructed public image.  It's a fragile thing.

    Parent
    BTD... I do (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:21:37 PM EST
    NOT know ONE Democrat in my area (Pittsburgh) that will vote for Obama now. I am the Union Electrician working at the new Children's Hospital job site. I have been polling guys at work for months, and NO ONE wants him, except the black guys, which out of roughly 1200 construction workers maybe 35 are black. The white working men and white women dislike Obama, all around here. I am not kidding. It has gotten way worse since Clinton won here in PA. I hear people complain about camp Obama and the media pounding on the Clintons just seems unfair to Hillary Clinton. It has truly become a racial divide around here. That is why you are seeing the HUGE numbers for Clinton in West Virginia. If that BIG win in NC did anything for BHO, it divided the races more. I find what is really pi$$ing people off was the mayor of Gary Indiana, holding back results until everyone was sleeping, was sort of the last straw. Obama also has the softy/super liberal thing about him. I honestly believe he can't beat McCain, at the very least, he can't win PA. I hope these super delegates are watching and listening.

    SO PA = GOP (none / 0) (#137)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    Suddenly all these Democrats have gone to the Republcans? What is up with that?
    The only reason someone would not vote for Obama if he gets the nomination would be because they either accept Republican political views or are so hard headed they would vote against their own self interest. Seriously. Because the policies of Obama and Clinton are not that different. And, face it, Clinton just talks the talk - she is about as working class as the Queen of England.

    Parent
    Would they be stupid (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    to vote for McCain? Of course. But having an intellectual argument on a blog about why that is so seems like folly.

    Either change their minds or prepare to lose.

    Parent

    I hear different versions (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    of what people are saying.

    1-Leave President blank, then vote straight Dem down ticket.
    2-Vote McCain, then all Dem down ticket.
    3-Screw it, I have had enough, I'm going republican

    So my answer is yes, I hear many Dems say that they will vote McCain, don't be surprised, we are rural/suburban, gun loving, deer hunters. This is NOT San Francisco or the latte' crowd. It is rugged Appalachia.

    Remember John Kerry only won 51-49% last time, and that is with Teresa Heinz, from Pittsburgh helping. Hillary would win easily in PA, OH etc. according to polling

    Parent

    no voting for McCain please. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    howdy neighbor (none / 0) (#155)
    by kempis on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:09:15 PM EST
    I think you're right. I think PA is going to be McCain country.

    Parent
    Screeching about (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:39:58 PM EST
    people voting against their own self interest is a waste of time. I've heard people like you yell and yell about it. It sounds like "you idiots, we're good for you, why won't you vote for us?" bs.

    There are voters who would consider voting for us if we make the case. Obama isn't making the case that anyone other than AA's or creative class should vote for him. He's recycling Dukakis.

    Parent

    Screeching? Yelling? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:57:17 AM EST
    You really are out of line.  The poster is reporting what s/he is hearing from others.  Your issue is with them -- but you had best not yell like this at them, either, and call them idiots.  It really is not a persuasive mode.

    Parent
    McCain is not seen (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    by the voters, and has not been seen by the voters for a long time, as the kind of Republican who screwed up the country.  He is NOT Generic Republican in most voters' eyes.

    Secondly, none of the great Dem. heroes of the past, from FDR to Jack and Bobby Kennedy, were anywhere near to working class (and a darn sight further away from it than the basically lower middle class Clintons), and yet they were able to resonate strongly with working-class folks.

    It's just like elitism.  Has nothing to do with your current station in life, it has to do with the voters' perception of your ability to see things from their point of view.


    Parent

    Sure the policies are different... (none / 0) (#184)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:06:59 PM EST
    One is original and comprehensive and paid for and deeply interconnected with the challenges and needs they grew out of and they are intermeshed with other policies elswhere that are necessary for their success in an organic, wholistic interdependent way.

    One copies a few topic sentences and twist a few parts around to better suit some corporate interest.  Like Comprehensive Energy Independence Plan that meshes with Infrastructure Renewal Plan, Research and Technology Plan, New Industries/New Jobs Economic Plan with details of how it is all paid for... as opposed to :

    What she said about Green Collar jobs and infrastructure and add a lot of nuclear power plants, coal and take the regulations and make them voluntary and then the rest of what she said.

    Parent

    Are you finding that men, as well as women, (none / 0) (#140)
    by chancellor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:31:32 PM EST
    believe that Hillary is receiving harsh treatment from the press? If so, do you think they are feeling even more inclined to support her, especially since she's continuing the good fight?

    Parent
    ABSOLUTELY.... (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    If the primary was run in PA again today she would double her win, IMHO. I am telling you people, my 62 year old mother, a lifelong Republican is feeling sorry for Hillary and despises BO. She says Hillary better stay in and not let "that man win"......

    In a million years I would not have expected sympathy for Hillary Clinton from my mom.

    Parent

    I am finding men just as furious (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:47:02 PM EST
    maybe more so, in my phone banking.

    But, here's the thing:  When Hillary Rodham met Bill Clinton, he was much more hillbilly than the guy you see before you today.  I don't wanna go all Green Acres here, but, coming from Wellsley, she was just about everything elitist aspire to and he was none of that.

    An elitist would have made fun of his accent or called him a hick.  Hillary married him and bore his child and has stayed married to him all these years.  That is why she's not an elitist, and that is why she is connecting with folks.

    Parent

    I've lived in Oregon for a few years (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:22 PM EST
    and can't say that I can put my finger on the difference either, but I think that there is more of a quasi-libertarian stance out west, including Oregon. Kind of a "stay out of our way and we will solve our own problems" attitude which translates into some negativity towards the Federal Government. So Obama's tack of campaigning as an outsider has some appeal there. And with Bill Clinton's Forest Initiative, although it was a good thing, I think it adds up to some alienation  towards Hillary as well. That and the fact that the Obama campaign has had a strong presence up there accounts for Obama doing better demographically in Oregon. If the money and time outlay between the two campaigns were equal I suspect that Clinton would take Oregon as well.

    Also, if you look at the polls in Oregon, there is a HUGE gender gap there with Clinton ahead with women by 7 points and Obama ahead with men by 30 points. Oregon is more about Clinton not connecting with men there then it is about Obama connecting with whites. If she had the time and money to campaign there like she campaigned in PA or in Ohio I think she would cut that gap considerably,  but she's running out of time and money so its not likely that she will be able to close that gap much.

     

    oops (none / 0) (#167)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    This was meant as a reply to Edgar08's post #148.

    Parent
    If Obama could do better, he would have already (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by LCaution on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:38:44 PM EST
    BTD,
    You remind me of me when Gore was running: "why doesn't he show more animation, etc., etc."; when Kerry was running: "he's got to know he's got a boring speech style, why doesn't he fix it?"

    The simple truth is that, for whatever reason, Obama is unable to connect (in large enough numbers) outside the AA and latte crowd.  If he were able to do it, Hillary wouldn't have won the states she's won by the margins she's won, and the groups she's won.  He would be the runaway nominee, ala McCain.

    Hoping that he will improve his game for the GE is, I'm afraid, not enough. "if wishes were..."

    I wasn't quite old enough to vote when McGovern ran, but this election is looking like a repeat.  Unpopular President (and, believe me, compared to Nixon, Bush 43 is a teddy bear), unpopular war (over 45K dead during 1972 race), Watergate investigations beginning - and Nixon creamed him.

    BTD, I love reading your diaries (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:19:29 PM EST
    and I really respect your attitude....and

    I think you are wrong about the changes you have so long encouraged in Obama's campaign. He won't do the work.

      He would have done very well to listen to you.  I think about what we know about his life and the little bits we have learned so far about his choices. The more I have read the less I believe them man thinks he has to adapt to voters needs out in the majority.

    He still seems like the person looking for short cuts.  In high school calling the coach a racist after bening benched for bad play; and the professor who said he wouldn't put in the work was a racist, too. And the people who objected to his taking credit for the work community members did in his pre-law school days, to winning the Law Review post without ever contributing a word of writing for it.

     And no matter how we think it happened, there is moving from 27% of the Black vote to 92%, mostly in a week without contributing more to the community.

     And nobody wants to talk about it till after Hillary is gone, but the details of the Rezko mess run very dirty and very deep.  When we read the Chicago reporting we learn that Obama has strong connections to the Gov. Rod Blagojevich in their relationships to a large number of the characters who are involved in the indictments and trials just starting to heat up in Chicago.
    Campaign  records show a regular pattern of donations to Blagojevich for 25,000 and to Obama for 5,000 from various parties involved in government contracts and each coincides with some movement on contracts or regulatory board actions (or decisions not to act). These parties are tied to the prosecutions just getting going good in Chicago with Fitzgerald and others.

    To suit your various confirming data needs, there's tons of stuff waiting to be delved. Google: Chicago Board Games and Blagojevitch, Levine testimony and Rezko Trial, and Obama's law firm boss, Allison Davis re: arranging contributions for contracts.  And Cellini and Rosenburg and the failed low income housing projects and Obama's roll in protecting the owner - his chief fundraiser and property co-owner- against the low income residents.

     This is just the tip of what the Republicans are  getting well versed on. If you don't want to read the Sun-Times and other Chicago papers and blogs, try checking in at Republican web journals and magazines.

     They are ready. They  are learning the  names and especially the nationalities of the contractors/contributors getting letters to regulators from State Senator Obama -the Syrian Rezko and the Iraqi Saddam associate and the Iranian ...you can just see how this is going to go in the General Election.

     We know nothing (not even about how Obama fits in with the original cantractors' plan to run Blagojevich for President till he got exposed and Obama stepped up) and we don't seem willing to learn.

     We excuse the repeated plagerism of speeches and policy plans, the denied substantive connections with people and events significant in his life.

     When William Ayers wrote the grant for the Annenberg Challenge, got it funded and picked Obama to Chair it and worked with him on it for eight years, Obama "just some guy I sat in a few board meetings with".

     Try this NYTimes article(link is too long) Janny Scott, July 30, 2997 "In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd". It tells about some of his Chicago days and some of who is under the bus!

    Senator Obama has seemed so unconcerned about currying favor with groups he needs to get voting for him.  He historically underperforms when it is time to do the work of contributing his share or defending his constituencies.

     He has a searchable record of finding the right contacts to get to the short cut, elevating himself and then putting them under the bus.  He has given a great deal of evidence in his wake, if we care to examine it, that his loyalties are not to constituencies, mentors, minor contributors, espoused values, former friends (Even Alice Palmer who picked him for the state ballot to fill her senate seat is campaigning hard for Hillary, from under the bus.)

    He won't even give back anything for all of those African American votes. He won't appear associated with Black organizations, institutions, causes or lend his help.

     Don't be hoping he will now make the effort to appear to care for working class or white or Appalachian or Floridian voters.  He doesn't seem to see the point.


    No, I did not steal this from (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    I know those two have a history (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:21:47 PM EST
    but. . .

    Well, you know.

    Parent

    Mizner (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    is smart and so is DH. Frankly I think he knows there are holes in his theory. He is preaching to his choir there.

    Parent
    Why (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    does he do that? It seems that sticking one's head in the sand will only lead to disappointment in Nov. Alas, I think Obama supporters don't want to hear the truth. They are so taken with the "movement" that they simply can't imagine that there's anyone else who won't be. Shades of McGovern 1972. It's tiresome to see the same failed mindset dominate time and again.

    Parent
    But... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Petey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    Mizner is smarter.  And not just on this topic.

    Parent
    Lots of snowbirds from IN and OH (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:23:48 PM EST
    in FL, but they probably make too much money to qualify as "Appalachian."  

    "Appalachia" (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    seems to be a code word for something else.  I'm just not sure what.  Maybe just 'people who don't like Obama'.

    You're right but..... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    ...all of the things that I can think that it might be code for I would consider slurs.

    Parent
    Yup - when I say I'm not sure (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST
    I don't always mean it.

    Parent
    code word (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by Kathy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    racist, uneducated whites.

    If Obama had bothered to really campaign in those states, he would have seen for himself that this is certainly not the case.  There are amazing artist villages, schools, and retreats all through the region. You find folks who live in antebellum mansions and folks who live in shacks without running water.  It truly represents a lot of America.

    But, apparently, Obama had better things to do than go out and meet them.

    Parent

    This is depressing. (none / 0) (#22)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    You're right, of course, but Obama is going to be the candidate.    

    Hopefully Axelrod and crew prove to be a heckuva lot more savvy than the average Kos poster.

    I think he has something planned.

    Parent
    The next stop is "out of ideas" (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    If he had something else planned, he would have won Indiana and Pennsylvania. And the evidence suggests that they TRIED.

    We're in a very bad place right now.

    Parent

    Disagree. (none / 0) (#59)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:39:23 PM EST

    What might work in the general against McCain is different than what didn't work in the Democratic primary against Hillary.   Different electorates, different opponents.

    McCain is saddled with Iraq and Bush among other things.   There are opportunities to exploit.

    I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic.   But I will have my fingers crossed.

    Parent

    I am still trying to figure out if it is luck (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    or skill but they have done a better than fair job so far.
    the Clinton campaign has basically committed suicide but still you have to admire what they have done.


    Parent
    BTD... (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    Axelrod has no plan.  His plan was

    1. Have Obama win the Democratic nomination
    2. Don't allow Obama to switch to the GOP after he gets the nomination.

    Obama isn't stupid -- two years ago, he knew that he wouldn't be ready to run for President in 2008.  What changed in those two years was the political landscape -- when Obama made his decision to un, it looked like all it would take would be a "D" next to your name to win in November.

    Parent
    At this (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:44:58 PM EST
    point I doubt it. Anyone who goes in TV and says they don't need these votes isn't too sharp about demographics imo. Axelrod thinks he's running a primary in the south side of chicago. It's worked so far but I'm not confident that it's going to work in a general election.

    Parent
    I hope it's (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:49:53 PM EST
    a values transplant with an empathetic component.

    I don't think his message is the problem.

    I think he is the problem.

    You can get him to change his message but the thing about working-class folks is...they can spot fake sincerity a mile away.  

    And living from paycheck to paycheck, they can't afford to take a chance on a president who is clueless about their immediate concerns...and if he's not now, why should they believe he ever will be?

    I don't.

    Parent

    Map of Appalachia: (none / 0) (#23)
    by Addison on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    This isn't posted in opposition to your post, merely included as an added bit of information for people who aren't familiar with the region or its boundaries:

    Map of Appalachia

    Wikipedia:

    Appalachia is a term used to describe a region in the eastern United States that stretches from southern New York state to northern Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia. Although part of the Appalachian Mountains extend through New England and into Canada, this area is not included in the accepted geographical definition of Appalachia.

    Over twenty million people live in Appalachia, an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom, covering mostly mountainous, often isolated areas from the border of Mississippi and Alabama in the south to Pennsylvania and New York in the north. Appalachia also includes parts of the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio,and the entire state of West Virginia. The region contains few intermediate-sized cities, and only two large metropolitan areas are located entirely within the region--Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Knoxville, Tennessee. (However, the expansive region served by the Appalachian Regional Commission incorporates some additional urban areas, including Birmingham, Alabama, the northern part of the Atlanta metropolitan area, western fringes of the Charlotte area, western fringes of the Piedmont Triad area, western fringes of the Washington metropolitan area and the eastern fringes of the Nashville metropolitan area.)



    How Big Appalachia? You Really Wanna Know? (none / 0) (#45)
    by tokin librul on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:32:19 PM EST
    Just about anywhere you find an enclave of scots-irish pig-farmers, crofters, and shepherds, there's a little chunk of Appalachia right there.

    wanna hear sumpin spooky? find a copy of Into the Twangy-First Century/Row v. Wade by the Burns Bros/Run C&W...You might think it satiric, or ironic, but if you remember they call it Ypsi-tuckee you'll get a hint of the musicology involved...


    As a working class mutt.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    I can't fathom how any working class person could relate to any of the stooges...Moe Clinton, Larry Obama, or Curly McCain.  Or how any of the stooges could relate to us.  They don't buy their own gas, clean their own houses, mow their own lawns.  We don't have chauffers and security details to seperate us from the proles.  

    I mean we are working class, we are supposed to be street smart and be able to see a con-job from a mile away.  But when it comes to politicians our street smarts go out the window...maybe it's desperation, self-delusion, who knows.  

    FDR was a millionaire (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    Elitism is a state of mind and a will to have it! (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    Bill never made over $35,000 a year until he was President!  He was raised poor, by a widow working 2 jobs and going to school to train as a Nurse so she could better support them.

    But we need to get over thinking that having money keeps a person from fighting for those who don't have money and automatically makes a person behave as an Elitist.

    Elitism lives where people don't connect with and don't care to connect with people who have less.

     It thrives when people think that those who are less fortunate, less educated, less wealthy are basically less important and less worthy.  Some extend the attitude to race and other physical characteristics, heritage and even English proficiency or citizenship.

    I don't understand why some of the people who write in support of Senator Obama on this subject appear to have trouble understanding that the Elitism being referred to in these campaigns is a percieved expression of attitude  

     It is not about how much money someone has, gets paid, or had growing up. It is about the presence or absence of an empathy, familiarity, understanding and caring.

     People expeience it as a "connection." It can very well come from a person's desire to learn about, understand, relate to and maybe even change the conditions of another's life. You could call it a willingness to  imagine one's self living in another person's shoes. It is from picturing that path that a gifted politician comes to understand the policies and plans that are needed to impact the other person's life for the better.  And it can hone the concern for the negative impact moves in Washington can have.

    People feel that they can sense that willingness and that concern when they assess a campaign.  And they feel that the can feel the absence of the empathy or the will to do the work to learn about their lives.They may believe that the actions of that candidate will not benefit their families after the election.

    Many of us thought that the label "Democrat" on a Congress person in 2006 meant that the candidates saw us and our concerns and supported what we wanted to happen in Congress.  We have been utterly disappointed in the lack of action on those concerns since then.  Maybe the voters are now telling us that the "D" by a name will no longer be nearly enough.  We need to feel the connection.

    I don't think the apparent inability to understand this concept is a function of youth or inexperience with thinking about others. Nor was it ever a matter of finances.  I think it is a matter of will.

    Parent

    Please.... (none / 0) (#198)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:00 AM EST
    people who respect the working class taxpayer don't do this.

    From the link...

    Clinton, whose recently released tax forms show he has made more than $10 million per year since leaving office, nevertheless has already claimed $8 million in retirement benefits (and he's not retired), plus $3.2 million for office overhead, plus $420,000 for his phone bill. The later figure is difficult to take seriously; even if you yakked 24/7 on a satellite line to Tajikistan, it's hard to believe you could ring up $420,000 in telephone charges. Is some of this money really going to staffers for Clinton's speechmaking business? In public the very wealthy Clinton wags his finger about how the rich are shafting the average guy. He himself is shafting the average guy by claiming lavish tax subsidies.

    Bill's feeding from the public trough reminds me of this lyric....

    Well I don't mind stealing bread
    From the mouths of decadence
    But I can't feed on the powerless
    When my cup's already overfilled

    - Temple of the Dog

    The Clinton's are feeding on the powerless and should be ashamed.  I expect such treasury looting from the Republicans...but not from supposed "working class heroes".

    Parent

    FDR.... (none / 0) (#197)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    and his cronies threw the working man a bone because if they didn't they were in line for the Marie Antoinette treatment.  The Great Depression would have lead to the Great Revolution if it wasn't for the New Deal.

    It wasn't out of any love or respect for the working man, it was an act of self-preservation.

    Parent

    Please do not link to posts (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:46:33 PM EST
    I link to in my own post.

    Here is a comment (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:49:10 PM EST
    WV voters are... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    This article on West Virginia voters really makes it clear that some voters there don't like Obama because he isn't 'American' enough for them. It is this kind of voter we in the Democratic party do not need. Let them go to the Republican party.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
    Yes, let's toss away voters. who needs 'em?

    How about Obama does the patriotic pandering thing instead?

    Parent

    How about both? (5.00 / 8) (#107)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:05:35 PM EST
    Pander to liberals who despise faux patriotism by going on about how phony flag pins are, and then wear a flag pin anyway!

    Honestly, one of the reasons I've come to appreciate Hillary so much is that she doesn't wax on about how she's above playing the game.  She just plays it.

    Parent

    What should we do though? (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    I know you can't toss away voters, and that we DO need them to win the general.  But the fact is that these people do exist, and they WON'T vote for Obama no matter what.  Since he is likely to be the nominee, what should we do?

    If Hillary wins the popular vote I have no problem with her as the nominee.  But I don't want to "cave in" to this type of sentiment and give Hillary the nomination if she doesn't have the popular vote just because these people will vote for her and not him.

    Some people have legitimate reasons for disliking Obama, but some people are just flat-out bigoted and will not vote for him.  Denying that this second group exists won't make them go away.

    Parent

    its not just "these people"... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    ...if it was just "these people", obama could probably squeak through.

    But Obama has alienated a lot more than just white working class voters.  Latin@s and older voters are two other major constituencies that Obama has alienated, and McCain already appeals to.

    Obama painted himself into a corner because all he thought he needed to do to win in November was be "not the Republican" -- so he did what he had to do to win the nomination (especially when it came to sucking up to the media) and now he's forced to live with the consequences.

    Parent

    Hillary alienates too (none / 0) (#129)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    Well, obviously, Hillary has her own problem alientating voters because she has all but officially lost the nomination - so I would not just accept that it is Obama who has alientated voters.
    At the end of the day if the 'white working class' don't go for Obama then that is there loss. And possibly our loss for the White House.

    But the General election will be a different dynamic than right now.

    Parent

    Triumphalism. (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    He has alienated a lot of women (none / 0) (#195)
    by splashy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:25:47 AM EST
    That's for sure! Especially older women that have seen it all when it comes to the degrading treatment of women.

    Parent
    WE can't do anything. If HE wants to (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:20:52 PM EST
    be the American president, he's gonna have to connect with all types of Americans. So far his associations, comments about bitter clingy folks and this whole place needs CHANGE are just turning a lot of people off. His whole campaign has been made for college students, AAs and rich liberals. That leaves out the majority of Americans.

    Parent
    Interestingly (none / 0) (#130)
    by Steve M on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    I have not seen a lot of Obama supporters argue against the point that Hillary would be the weaker candidate because many people harbor an irrational hatred for her.

    Trying to quantify the number of racists in the electorate as compared to the number of sexists strikes me as a fool's errand anyway.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by madamab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    Classic.

    The fault is theirs for not understanding the Great Obama, not Obama's for failing to connect.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#139)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    You got it.
    If they listen to Obama they will get his message is not anti-white working class. Instead all many people hear are sound clips, gossip and rumors.

    Parent
    But in what way is it pro-working class? (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    Is there anything in Obama's message that reaches out to poor and working class voters?  Seriously, I'm asking.  You can't eat hope and change.  He's a process candidate.  He wants to reform politics.  You can't eat that or pay the doctor with that.  So no bread and butter being served.  Fallback, can he at least make them happy about being Americans and make them feel safe?  Apparently not.  He's got a patriotism problem, and his idea of foreign policy is sitting down with our enemies without preconditions.  Last resort, has he ever proved himself under pressure - led troops into battle, won a hard-fought policy battle that changed people's lives for the better, saved a state or a city or even a company in crisis as an executive - and therefore shown the chops to hold the toughest job in the world?  Crickets chirp.

    Why would anyone in current crisis vote for him?  What does he offer the people who don't have the luxury of taking a swing at revolutionizing politics?

    Parent

    Obama working class (none / 0) (#152)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:58:03 PM EST
    davnee
    Many things you claim here are regurgitating talking points that aren't true. The foreign policy one is really not true and shows you have not actually heard what he has said.
    Yes, there is a perception that Obama is unpatriotic but that's not true.
    And if you look at his platform it deals a lot with working class issue and is actually just like Clinton's platform.
    What do you want? Him to come over to your house and explain it to you? If you think Obama is anti-working class then where do you stand with McCain or Bush, for that matter?

    Parent
    Check the website for issue substance. (5.00 / 6) (#153)
    by davnee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    Got it.  My favorite Obamabot response.  You do realize you could visit the sainted website yourself and memorize a few issue positions and at least pretend that that is what Obama is campaigning on out in the hinterlands.

    And my perception is my problem?  You better hope your candidate has got something better up his sleeve than that.

    Parent

    That Is A Great Sales Pitch (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:32:44 PM EST
    Bound to win people over with the argument of if you disagree with Obama you stand with McCain and Bush.

    In fact, that argument sounds real familiar.

    Parent

    Every person is different, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    every township is different, every county is different, every state is different, and every region is different.  It is silly to try and come up with one silver bullet to explain everything. Once you go beyond the county level, your getting into dart-throwing territory.

    Generally speaking, the lower class, working class, low-educated, and Seniors prefer Clinton. If, Obama was not on the ticket, Blacks would be supporting her, because, Blacks (unfortunately) are mostly made up of this demographic.  Same goes with most Hispanics. This has less to do about race than about and more about what groups like Clinton.  

    And, generally,  speaking as geographical area, Appalachia  is filled with Clinton's favorable demographics.  

    Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, generally speaking, are much more educated, hence that is why the three lead in ACT / SAT scores year in and year out. That is also why they went for Obama.

    "That is also why they went for Obama" (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    so much for education = intelligence.

    Parent
    how many Americans have college degrees? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Josey on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:04:41 PM EST
    Census.gov is a great site (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    and especially its quick facts pages.  The answer on this is slightly under a fourth of Americans -- and, of course, a far younger group than Americans in general.


    Parent
    So wrong about Wisconsin (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
    and its educational levels -- yeh, we educate our kids well, then we lose them to the "brain drain."

    And so wrong about why Wisconsin went for Obama.  Btw, it would not do so today; BTD is wrong on that.

    Parent

    Compared to other parts of the country... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:01:08 PM EST
    ...though and I didn't mean to say that is only reason, there are many reasons, which we have talked about before.

    Parent
    Oops... I meant to send (none / 0) (#183)
    by Exeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    this link the midwest, generally, has much more minimally educated people than other parts of the country, and, especially, the South.

    Parent
    The key thing is the more highly educated (none / 0) (#196)
    by splashy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:35:16 AM EST
    Have the luxury of not caring if there is things like universal health care.

    Oh, and another thing, the lower educated are often just as intelligent, just not as privileged, so have a different world view. The world doesn't treat them as well, so they are more likely to be suspicious of pretty words. They know that many times that is the hallmark of a con job.

    Give them plain language, with basic ideas and practical information, and you have something. Don't go on and on without saying anything definite, in a vague wishy washy standing on quicksand sort of way.

    Parent

    Obama's Bubba Gap (none / 0) (#124)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    this post argues that it is not just jobs but values and hence the disconnect.

    Obama's Bubba Gap

    are white oregonians (none / 0) (#135)
    by andreww on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:24:17 PM EST
    who work considered working class? Say, people that work at the docs for example.  Or do those white people not count as white people? Just wondering.

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    Obama doesn't really have 100% of the vote in OR so we can't assume any demographic breakdown until the exit polls come back.

    Even then, having grown up in OR and spent some time with relatives in PA, I really don't know how to explain it but what "working class" that exists in OR has a different feel to it than the east coast variation thereof.

    To infuse race into it seems incorrect to me as well.  Oregon is a service industry based economy, big towns with lots of colleges, (Corvallis, Eugene, Portland).  Tourism is very important (Ashland).  And yes, there are some factories too, and some docks too, I guess.  It's not the Oregon I know after living there for 8 years.

    You can get a feel for what PA is all about after being there for 10 minutes.

    Drawing comparisons between OR and a state like PA and then making conclusions about race doesn't work for me.


    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    They are in Wisconsin too.

    Not sure what your point is supposed to be.

    the argument is NOT that Obama loses whites in every state.

    It is that he loses whites in states not in Appalachia.

    Did you miss that? Or were you trying to change the subject?

    Parent

    O/T but (none / 0) (#186)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:09:17 PM EST
    Did want to say that I have enjoyed this board so much and want you to know that you 2 have been consistent in running a tight ship. This is the kind of stuff you will find on other boards.

    Unhappy over the polls in WV, a poster said that

    Great...Let the Clintons move to WV and become "King of the Hicks"

    Kudos to you both

    Parent

    Doom (none / 0) (#174)
    by BethanyAnne on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:56:13 PM EST
    Doooooom!

    The sky is falling!

    lol.  OK, had to get that out of my system.  Seems there is a mandated post of the day from BTD:  "Obama has a problem".  And then folk pile on "hey, and that problem means he CANNOT win!"  Which, of course, is not what BTD said, but hey, whatever.

    So, let's see, there are, what, 6 months or so until the election? I know that it's silly of me to have confidence that he will work this out and win in November, but, you know, I do have that confidence. I've seen him come from nowhere to beat the establishment candidate with amazing advantages. He isn't winning by as much as I'd liked to see, but still, a win's a win.

    Frankly (cause I know you are going to go there) I don't know what he's going to do about this problem.  Nope.  Dunno.  But he's exceeded my expectations so far.  I'm going to hang tight, keep calling people, focus on his strengths, and believe that if more people pay attention, then enough of them will find that they are going to vote for him.

    Call it Kool Aid if you must, but I think he can beat McCain in November, and I don't think that the results of the primary map onto the general in the way that the comments here assume.                                  

    Appalachia is a state of mind more than it is (none / 0) (#175)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:08:30 PM EST
    a geographic location. You can find Appalachia voters in every state.

    It's about values...

    Saved by Bob Barr! (none / 0) (#176)
    by oldpro on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:17:53 PM EST
    Whew.

    Close call.

    Now Obama has a chance in the general.

    Drawing attention to this link (none / 0) (#188)
    by ghost2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:17:34 PM EST
    I think Sean Oxendine was the first one who noticed this, and wrote about it.  He also has very cool country maps to go with it.

    April 03, 2008

    Also see Jay Cost.

    Wow, so prescient in early April (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:13:42 AM EST
    in the first link's prediction of exactly what we see now:

    "Also note that calling for her to drop out before PA, PR, KY and WV vote would be akin to asking Obama to drop out because he was trailing with GA, AL, and MS yet to vote. It's cutting her off before literally her best states vote."

    The links offer good analyses.  Thanks.

    Parent

    BTD - (none / 0) (#199)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:37:01 AM EST
    I no longer pay any attention to that Kos poster; nor should you.