Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan for a Progressive Majority

Part of the "candidate blogger" series -- I'll be blogging Wednesdays for Obama
I'm not connected to the campaign.  The views expressed are my own.

When I was working with a homelessness advocacy non-profit in Chicago, my co-workers would drive down to Springfield for lobbying trips and would come back beaming about the young state senator who managed to charm everyone at Health and Human Services committee hearings and was one of our biggest allies.  My friends and I eagerly watched his climb in the Senate race, and so his emergence on the national scene was somewhat less surprising to me.

I've posted several diaries on why I believe Obama is the most compelling advocate for progressive policies, about his uncanny ability to reach out to young people, and his calls for a new politics based on progressive values.  I want to briefly summarize those points here, focusing on the big picture, and then lead into a remarkable answer Obama gave last week about what he intends to accomplish as a candidate for president.

Restoring Faith in Government

For Obama, the last eight years of the Bush administration have demonstrated the profound failure of the Republican governing philosophy, the moral and practical bankruptcy of the principle that "we are all in it for ourselves" --- which is not only a kind of cynicism about government but a kind of cynicism about the possibility of collective action, of movement politics.  In the end, for Obama, who often works historical arguments into his speeches, progressivism is the deeper American tradition.

Our cynicism about politics, Obama said at the Take Back America conference, stems from "a failure of leadership":

It has to do with the philosophy they've peddled in this town for the last six years - a philosophy of trickle-down and on-your-own that says government has no role in solving the challenges we face and so it shouldn't even try.
As Obama put it in 2006:
The problem isn't that their philosophy isn't working the way it's supposed to - the problem is that it is working exactly the way it's supposed to.
Democrats will never face a more receptive audience for a new politics based on progressive values, on restoring faith in the ability of government to create change.  It is not enough to win this election.  This is our opportunity to lay the groundwork for elections to come:
And so I am eager to have this argument not just with the President, but the entire Republican Party over what this country is about.

Because I think that this is our moment to lead.

The time for our party's identity crisis is over. Don't let anyone tell you we don't know what we stand for and don't doubt it yourselves. We know who we are. And in the end, we know that it isn't enough to just say that you've had enough.

In other words, the Bush administration has presented us with the opportunity to build a progressive majority.  America is ready as never before for a new politics based on progressive values.  

I strongly believe that Hillary Clinton, for all of her strengths, cannot be this candidate, given her past history and associations.  This kind of figure can only be someone new.  And she isn't presenting a vision for a fundamental realignment of the electorate or for the future of the Democratic party, nor does she have the ability to articulate that appeal to new constituencies -- to reach disaffected moderates, youth and faith-based voters.  (If you don't believe in the seriousness Obama's efforts to reach disaffected Republicans, take a look at his latest announced Dinner with Obama: two of four are former Republicans.)

A Progressive Majority?

During a question and answer session last week before the National Association of Black Journalists, Obama made an argument for his candidacy that he has sometimes made privately about why, given a strong field and a number of candidates with good qualities, he would be the better candidate than Clinton or Edwards.  He could, after all, as he notes, wait another ten years and still be younger than most of the other candidates.  And he can only risk his enormous popularity by running.  

For one, he believes in the historic nature of this election, in the crucial opportunity that it presents.  And second, in a reply worth quoting at length because it reveals just how ambitious Obama's vision is, he believes he has demonstrated a kind of appeal that no one else has:

But one of the things I had to ask myself was, is there something I can do as a Democratic nominee for president that no other candidate in the field or thinking about it can do?  And I have the capacity, I believe, to attract new people into the process and change the political map in a fundamental way.  And that's the only way that meaningful change is going to happen in America.

Obama's argument is that without reaching out to new voters, without building new coalitions, you might be able to eke out a victory for the presidency, but you will never be able to create change.
Think about this:  Everybody is going to have a health care plan, everybody's going to have a plan for energy, everybody is going to come up and say we're going to deal with urban poverty and rural issues, but if we run on the same model that we've run on for the last three or four election cycles, which is basically you concede that 45% of the country is on the one side and 45% on the other, you've got ten percent in the middle, and they all live in apparently Florida and Ohio, [Laughter] and you try to eke out a victory, then the best you can do is win a fifty plus one victory.  You eke out a victory, maybe you pick out a couple seats in the senate, a couple seats in the house. You haven't built up a working majority for broad-based, significant change.
Obama then lays out the new constituencies his candidacy can bring to the table...  which I bring to you after the jump.

It's surprising that this passage hasn't been picked up more widely in the media:

Now if I'm the Democratic nominee: Mississippi is in play.  Because Mississippi is 40% African-American but votes 25% African-American.  

If I'm the nominee: Suddenly young people are coming out in record numbers.  

If I'm the nominee: Suddenly independents and some Republicans who have not been interested in the kind of  "tit for tat" politics, the sharply partisan politics of the last several years, they start listening to why a progressive agenda might be common sense.

Obama is not advocating a grand compromise with the right, as is often suggested, rather he envisions a working progressive majority, a realignment of political life along progressive values.

We can scramble the political map.  And that's the only way that real change is going to happen.  That's how you get a universal health care bill passed.  Because we've got not fifty plus one but a sixty percent majority in America, that insists that if we spend two trillion dollars year on health care, we shouldn't have 45 million uninsured.
Obama argues that he has demonstrated the potential to bring more states into play and the ability to speak to groups not normally approached by the Democratic party.

Anyway, thanks to Jerome for the opportunity, and thanks for reading.



Display:


Well Good Morning? (jk) (none / 0)

Barack Obama is definitely the candidate that relates to the average every day American struggling to make ends meet. (ALL of Them . Not just SOME) He empathizes with their struggles , but he also has a record of being active in helping people and not just telling them that he "feels their pain".


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:44:25 PM EST

Mississippi is in play (3.00 / 1)

I would love to see that happen; there would need to be massive voter registration in effect way ahead of time, even during the primary.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:45:00 PM EST

Re: Mississippi is in play (none / 0)

Barack Obama is on CSpan LIVE in about five minuets. He's in Iowa. Please watch and tell me what you think.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OOPS! (none / 0)

I meant that for everyone. Sorry.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It CAN happen (3.00 / 0)

if Obama is the nominee.  I have family in Huntsville, AL.  The reddest of red districts, and when Obama was there, the majority was "white" and "republican", at a "fundraiser".  Now, this area is where NASA is at, very governmental, but when my aunt called me to tell me about this, I was very shocked.  He will turn out the AA vote like no one else will.


by iamready on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mississippi is in play (none / 0)

No way.  Obama got his facts wrong.  The state is more like 37% African-American, but is already voting at like 35% African-American.  The problem isn't a lack of black turnout, it's solid white support for the GOP.


by FreedomDemocrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mississippi is in play (none / 0)

Yeah. If you read Thomas Schaller's book Whistling past dixie, he lays it all out. Even in MS with the largest african-american population in the south of around 37%, which votes 90% democratic, which gives democrats running statewide and presidential candidates a solid block of support no democrat wins statewide as the white vote is heavily republican. He provides stats that show that the higher the african-american population in a state, the more republicna the white vote is.

Obama won't put in MS in play, no democrat can do that now. We should give up on seriously going after most of the south in statewide and presidential races. Focus on clearly out republican moderates in the north and west coast and move into the competitive (for us) playing field of the western states (CO, NM, AZ, and NV).
If Richardson wasn't such a bad candidate with bad positions in many issues he'd be a smart choice to put those western states in contention, but any good democrat should be able to make them competitive.

We should also go after FL as it's a regional outlier in regards to attidudes in the southern region and I'd argue we should go after select other states that are tipping towards becoming majority minority states like Texas. We can also compete in the upper southern states that are changing like VA, KY, NC, and perhaps TN.


by Quinton on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If I were Obama (none / 0)

I would take a break from campaiging in the primary states and lead a massive voter registration drive throughout the South.

But then, I'm not Obama.


by david mizner on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:54:42 PM EST

Re: If I were Obama (none / 0)

He's doing both.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That said (none / 0)

His plan for building a progressive majority hinges on:

getting young voters to come out
winning Southern states
his avoiding tit-for-tat partisan politics

All worthy goals, but I wouldn't bet on any of these three things happening.

Edwards has a better chance of putting Southern States in play. Not Mississippi, but Virginia, North Carolina,. Tennessee, and Lousiana.


by david mizner on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If I were Obama (none / 0)

He is already DOING THAT.


by iamready on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If I were Obama (none / 0)

If he were up against anybody but Clinton, he'd have that luxury.  But the fact is half of the AA community is female.  To the extent that identity politics work at all, there is naturally still going to be a struggle to win over a good portion of those voters.

In a general election, this obstacle disappears (unless perhaps the GOP picks Rice as a VP to counter him).

 


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If I were Obama (none / 0)

It's always worth doing to help with local races in the southern states, but it's not going to help us out much statewide or in the presidential. Again Thomas Schaller lays out that there's been a ton of voter registration done in especially the AA community in the south since the civil rights bill was signed and there's not any low hanging fruit as people assume. The AA community is registered and votes in proportion to their make up of the population and it's not enough to overcome the monolithic white vote even in MS, which has the largest AA population in the south.


by Quinton on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pie-in-sky (1.00 / 2)

Looks like another pie-in-sky Barak plan. He said in the debate the way for him to claim white house is to win MS because 40% of population there is African American.

He and his followers are pretty much living in a fantasy world.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 03:59:18 PM EST

Re: pie-in-sky (3.00 / 5)

You are single handedly destroying this site.


by hanna on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (none / 0)

That's an overreach.


by DoIT on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (3.00 / 2)

You looking for some credit?  : )

J/K.


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (none / 0)

Yes, that person is.


by iamready on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (none / 0)

So how about some analysis?

Do you have an argument to back that statement up?  


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (none / 0)

He said he would win MS. If you believe this sort of thing, I really have nothing to debate with you.

Anyway, good luck Barak.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (none / 0)

Gotchya.  You have nothing.

As I figured.

P.S.  Actually he said MS is "in play" - but details like that never matter with you anyway.

P.P.S.  So what became of your "being tired of the bickering?"  Seems like you are back on your sad little horse again.


by AdamSmithsHand on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (3.00 / 2)

Please do not take "areyouready" seriously. He is a f'ing joke. If a diary doesn't involve polls (polls favoring Hillary, mind you) he pretty much won't have anything substantial to say. He can't even spell Barack (Barak??? are you kidding me?) properly. So you should totally ignore this ass. No respect for what Barack is doing what so ever. I hope for his sake all these polls he and Georgegep keep orgasming over, pan out, else someone will have some 'splaining to do come January.


by rapcetera on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (2.00 / 4)

You are WAY out of line here.  "Orgasming over"?    What a joke some of you Obama posters truly are.   You want me to link to that one Gallup poll that showed Obama ahead?  There you'll see a true example of many Obama posters cartwheeling, high-fiving and generally doing what you are describing here, but hilariously elated as if some of them just had their firstborn.  

The big question is what many of you will write when the unthinkable (but likely) happens:  Clinton winning the nomination in a landslide.  Will many of you simply disappear from here?  Blame the media?  Blame the "stupid" Democrats?

Give it a rest with these personal call-outs.   It is cheap.  


by georgep on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:54:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (none / 0)

Whatever dude. I've stated over and over that I don't believe in Polls 6 months out regardless of who's in the supposed lead. Find an example of me cooing over an Obama lead in any poll? find one example.

Get over yourself and these polls...


by rapcetera on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pie-in-sky (none / 0)

He did not state that, in fact, rewind your TIVO.  He gave MS as an example to the upward of 50% of the AA vote in the south.


by iamready on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:27:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Weak claim (none / 0)

If he can win Mississippi, then I assume he can win Georgia and Louisiana too.  

Yeah right.

He is clearly grasping at straws.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (none / 0)

Bill Clinton won those states.

With the right running mate and a stronger turn-out among African Americans, Obama could too.


by Namtrix on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Remember a 3rd party candidate - Perot (1.00 / 1)

Who split the Republicans vote, and remember Bubba, a good ole boy who sang in Church and wasn't born to a Muslim father.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember a 3rd party candidate - Perot (none / 0)

Obama's Father was agnostic. Not a Muslim, but then those facts would escape you wouldn't they?


by rapcetera on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember a 3rd party candidate - Perot (none / 0)

Obama isn't Bill Clinton - not even close


by dpANDREWS on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:22:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Remember a 3rd party candidate - Perot (none / 0)

You're right, not like Bubba. He reminds me more of RFK than anything...


by rapcetera on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:31:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

D'oh (none / 0)

My sides are hurting ... if I were drinking milk it would have come out my nose.

Obama doesn't come close to measuring up to RFK.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:11:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: D'oh (none / 0)

drink some milk then....


by rapcetera on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 03:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (3.00 / 2)

In 1992, Clinton carried Georgia, but lost MS, AL, and SC.

In 1996, he lost all of the deep south states, GA, SC, AL, MS.

There is no Democrat who can carry those states in the 2008 election. Just look at the numbers.

But, that's OK. Because the Republic Party is stuck in a southern strategy conundrum. The things they have done to lock down the South (the politics of hate) have undermined them in the key purple states AND in states with large Hispanic populations like California.


by hwc on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (2.00 / 2)

After reading your posts hwc, I start to see where republicans get the idea that Democrats are defeatists.

It seems that Hillary supporters want to cut and run--FROM THE SOUTH.

What a bunch of wimps you are.


by ArkansasLib on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 06:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (3.00 / 1)

Nothing could be farther from the truth. If you have read my posts, you also know that I am strongly in favor of Democrats nominating centrist, pro-growth, fiscally-responsible candidates. Combined with inclusive stances on social issues, this is a recipe for a signficant Democratic majority and the ability to start making inroads into the South.

The Republic Party has painted themselves into a demographic corner:

93% white
48% suburban
66% families with no children under 18

If the Democratic party does not paint themselves into a similar corner by nominating far left fringe candidates, it is very realistic to start taking back the border states, starting with states like Virginia, then North Carolina, and so forth.

However, I am not naive enough to think that the Democrats can compete in 2008 in the most hard-core Republican states like Miss, Al, Ga, and SC. That's a fool's errand.

BTW, Arkansas could be in play if Clinton is the nominee in 2008. I understand that Bubba has made it his personal mission to carry his home state for Arkansas' former first lady.


by hwc on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (none / 0)

The Clinton Camp did not commit to 50 state strategy for a reason.  If she is the candidate, the fight will be FL or OH, we have been there and totally done that.


by iamready on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (none / 0)

Factual correction:

Clinton did commit to a 50 state campaign. She did not commit, one way or another, to personally campaigning in all 50 states because she has not done her general election schedule yet.

The schedules for the candidate and surrogates in the general election is a very serious strategic issue. You only have about 60 candidate-days between the convention and election day. Those candidate-days need to be invested to win an electoral college majority. For example, it may not be efficient to devote a candidate-day to Wyoming, where the Republic Party won 3 electoral college votes by a margin of 69% to 29%. Better to spend that day in a key swing state like Florida or Ohio.


by hwc on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 09:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (none / 0)

Consider the likely Republican nominees first.

If Obama is running against flip-flopping Mormon Mitt Romney or three times divorced/cross dressing Giuliani, he can definitely put some southern states in play.  Edwards would be able to as well.

Don't count out the south just yet.


by Namtrix on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 06:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weak claim (3.00 / 1)

Thank you for showing we haven't all ceded 1/2 the country to the Republicans


by ArkansasLib on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 06:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Barack is spelled with a "c" (none / 0)


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's (none / 0)

We all can agree that only Obama would be able to max out the black vote.


by JaeHood on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:26:01 PM EST

Is Obama bringing new people in? (none / 0)

How many?

Apparently not enough.  I say this because it is obvious he is trailing Clinton.  At this point isn't leading in a single state that I am aware outside of his own.  For a guy who is supposed to bring in all these new people and change the map, doesn't that surprise you?

I think his talk is just the same stuff you hear every 4 years.  It is not unlike the spiel beiing delivered by Richardon, or Huckabee.  They are outsiders who will change Washington and build consensus too.  Can'll me cynical but my response to all of the is, 'yeah right.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:43:08 PM EST

Re: Is Obama bringing new people in? (3.00 / 1)

I don't understand this logic:

It will be almost impossible to change Washington and build consensus.

So instead of supporting an "outsider" who claims he wants to at least try and do these things, we are supposed to be pragmatic and settle for an "insider" who seems happy to stick with the same old Washington and the same polarized country?

Why even bother voting?


by HatchInBrooklyn on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good case for inspiring rhetoric (3.00 / 2)

You make a good case for Obama's inspiring rhetoric, but there is not enough meat on those bones. My specific interest is the new constituencies he brings to a progressive majority.

Both Obama and Clinton have a solid claim to be able to turn out new voters in particular constituencies. Obama claims African Americans and Clinton claims women. The problem for Obama is that he cannot win any AAs from the Republicans because nearly none vote Republican, and he probably can't improve turnout because registered AA turnout is pretty good. He can claim that he will bring new AA voters in.

There are Republican women Clinton could win over, and there is a large pool of registered Democratic single women who don't vote that Clinton could motivate to vote. There are also far more unregistered women than there are unregistered African Americans.

The numbers are stark, her pool is four times the size of his (census, 2004 election, in millions):





grouptotalreg, didn't votenot reg
Black2529
Women112936

He also has a case with young people, but here Clinton does at least as well in the polls with the young. And the biggest increase in the youth vote in recent history happened with Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign.

His last constituency, independents and Republicans, is eroding for him while Clinton makes progress.

All in all I think Clinton has a stronger case that her campaign can make broad based change in the electoral map.


by souvarine on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 04:50:14 PM EST

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan for a Progres (none / 0)

Obama has a plan for something? Boy, you sure fooled me!


by bsavage on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:04:18 PM EST

research anyone? (3.00 / 2)

Universal Health Care
Urban Poverty
Energy
Ethics Reform
Iraq
Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama cannot possibly believe this (3.00 / 1)

Now if I'm the Democratic nominee: Mississippi is in play.  Because Mississippi is 40% African-American but votes 25% African-American.  

Barack Obama cannot possibly believe this nonsense. If he does, he is hopelessly naive and inexperienced in electoral politics.

The reason that the south is now solidly republican is race. Pre-1964, the Democratic Party was the party of white southerners. LBJ gave the south away with the Civil Rights Act. The Republican Party is 93% white nationally. The Republicans dominate the south because of white interests.

Bush carried Mississippi over Kerry by 60% to 40% (684,981 to 457,766).

According to the US Census, Mississippi is 37% African-American. CNN's exit polling shows that 34% of the vote in the 2004 election was African-American. Thus, the turnout is already roughly proportional to the population. White men voted 81% for Bush. White women voted 89% for Bush. How Obama expects to turn around those numbers (which are echoed across the deep south) with voter registration is beyond me.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/r esults/states/MS/P/00/epolls.0.html

But, let's say by some miracle he does. So that's an additional 6 electoral college votes. Hardly enough to offset Obama's weaknesses in key purple states like Florida (27 electoral votes), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), and New Jersey (15%).

I know that Obama is not ignorant of electoral college math. He is pandering, plain and simple.


by hwc on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:25:48 PM EST

: Obama's Plan for a Progressive Majority (none / 0)

Thank you for a well delivered and responsible blog. I just saw Barack on C-span and he does have a plan. People who have taken sides only want to share opinions and not understandings.


vote cspan every day http://www.capitalnews.org/
by DANIELLECLARKE on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:30:15 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

psericks, good first diary.

One disagreement:

I am not sure the whole Missisippi thing should be "picked up" by the media.  I personally find the claims made way too "over the top."  

It's surprising that this passage hasn't been picked up more widely in the media:

IMHO, be glad it hasn't.  Most people would believe it to be "getting way ahead of oneself," and that is not necessarily a good thing.  People want solid confidence, but this is different.  I don't think this would play at all with most Democrats.


Now if I'm the Democratic nominee: Mississippi is in play.  Because Mississippi is 40% African-American but votes 25% African-American.  

Really?  Mississippi?  Very doubtful.   Reddest of the red states.

If I'm the nominee: Suddenly young people are coming out in record numbers.  

Based on what metric?  We have seen Clinton and Obama even in surveys that measure young people's excitement for either candidate (MTV survey,) Clinton leads OBama in the demogroup of young voters.  I don't dismiss that Obama has brought in some young voters, but so has Clinton, which is why she leads amongst young voters.  Mind you, not by as much as she leads amongst older demo groups, but leads nonetheless.  

If I'm the nominee: Suddenly independents and some Republicans who have not been interested in the kind of  "tit for tat" politics, the sharply partisan politics of the last several years, they start listening to why a progressive agenda might be common sense.

Is that why Clinton leads Obama 40% to 17% with Independents as per Pew Research poll the other day?  Counting on Republicans for your "coalition" is fool's gold, IMO.

Obama should be trying to shore up his DEMOCRATIC BASE.   It appears that he sees his coalition to consist of "young voters," "black voters," and Independents and Republicans not interested in "tit for tat" politics.  What about the rest of us?    


by georgep on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:45:25 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

Why don't the Clinton people have any hope for a realignment?  We have a chance to fundamentally change the way this nation does politics, but it requires a big vison.  Hillary ought to be saying this too.

Don't critize competing in every state.  I believe we can win MS, LA, AK, TN, GA, and TX - and I image most of the Dems in the states think likewise


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 06:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

We have more than hope for "realignment". Realignment is already occuring. Have you looked at the 2006 election? The most striking conclusion is that the Republic Party has been shoved out of the key border swing states into their last stronghold of the deep south and a few sparsely populated western states.

A major realignment is already occuring. Look at the head to head matchups between Clinton and the Republic candidates in key states like Ohio and Florida. Look at states like New Mexico that could be put in play.

These are significant shifts in the relative bases of the two parties.


by hwc on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan for a Progres (3.00 / 0)

I don't like Obama but I am glad he is helping to register voters to elect Hillary. At least he is doing something right.


by Hunky on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 05:53:46 PM EST

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan for a Progres (none / 0)

hahaha! One of the best comments I have read here.


by bsavage on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 06:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan for a Progres (none / 0)

I don't think Obama has a real chance to win Mississipi, but there's still something to be said for working to build support there.

One of the worst features of the Bush administration has been its insistence on pushing the agenda of a small minority of the population, and to hell with the rest. Obama recognizes this, and the nation surely would be better off if it had 75% of its people happy and content with the President and his values, even if not all that 75% voted for him. There's surely something to be said for that.

I also don't think there's anything that would per se prevent other candidates (e.g. Hillary) from doing this; she has many endearing quantities, and once people see she's not a fire breathing ogre, they'll be quite content with her. I just don't see her taking this course, and instead listening to the Shrums and Carvilles of the Democratic Party.


by Zephyrus on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:14:27 PM EST

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan (none / 0)

Nioce post. But frankly,. Obama's view of how to change the landscape ios my biggest beef with him.

What he prescribes is a disastrous political approach for the Dem Party, this nonpartisan image he conveys is precisely the problem.

It is NOT a strength for Dems. It is his fatal weakness.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 07:36:49 PM EST

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan (none / 0)

I think Obama believes that in order for him to win the nomination he has to bring out voters in the primary that would not bother to choose between Hillary and other democrats. Will Obama be successfull? who knows but he's not going to be able to out pander Hillary to interest group type primary voters. I hate bringing Reagan into this but it's how Obama views himself, he wants to do what Reagan did for conservatism, advance the cause by making his views more palatable to those who would normally never be supportive. The compromise is in tone and diction and not in adgenda which most observers find stikingly liberal. What ever one thinks of Obama for a black man to be able to appeal to white independant voters without having to sellout progressive principals is quite an acomplishment, he did not have to become Colin Powell or worse Condiliar Rice to appeal to the nation as a whole so I don't find his non-partison appeal to be at all problematic for Democrats.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:13:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then he is going to lose (none / 0)

because that is a terrible political strategy.

David Axelrod must be canned by Obama.


by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 08:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan for a Progres (none / 0)

Really well written Peter...

Good, good stuff... and totally agreed... Obama can really change the map... to expand and change the poltical calculus way beyond the old Rovian plan to win getting 51 percent...but have no real base to govern after you barely win.


by tchambers on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:09:08 PM EST

Re: Scrambling the Map: Obama's Plan for a Progres (none / 0)

Next time could you put together a summary of the nuts and bolts of getting our progressive agenda accomplished. I've been waiting so long.


by mrobinsong on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:33:11 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.