We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

A disturbing trend has emerged within the Obama campaign and among his supporters.  Apparently, many believe that Obama doesn't need working class votes in the general election.  Not only will he not need them, but there is almost a palpable pride in refusing them.  How, you can say what you will about the hypocrisy of the Republican Party - and there's ample hypocrisy to talk about - but Karl Rove & Co. always were ready to take any and all votes.  That's how you win elections.

The most visible example recently was the dustup between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala on CNN this week.  Brazile said,

But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/6/23141 0/6620
I groaned when I heard it.

Then Begala replied,

Let me finish my point. We cannot win with egg heads and African-Americans. OK, that is the Dukakis Coalition, which carried ten states and gave us four years of the first George Bush.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/6/23141 0/6620
I groaned again.

But it seems that the Obama campaign and his supporters are steaming full speed ahead towards that iceberg.  A movement always looks huge from within - from within the crowds at university campuses or on Independence Mall.  But once released from the confines of its party base, movement politics tend to dissipate much like a tank of water spilled on the ground.  Movement politics have failed on the presidential level with one notable exception - Ronald Reagan.  Yet, even Reagan was astute enough to know that driving away core traditional Republican constituencies was no way to build a coalition.

Whether Obama supporters like it or not, there is ample evidence to suggest that Obama has difficulty drawing non-African American working class voters - not just white, but Hispanic, too.  Is it racism?  Perhaps in small part, but a larger part may be that his message does not resonate with working class voters - African American blue-collar voters excepted.  Obama did nothing to dispel this perception by largely ignoring West Virginia.  Apparently Obama will pay little heed to Kentucky as well.  If Obama does have the nomination wrapped up, as his supporters argue, then that should be all the more reason to go into challenges areas and among challenging demographics and rub elbows.

A recent front-page post at Daily Kos, White Voters, Obama and Appalachia, suggests that Hillary Clinton's support comes largely from the "culturally stagnant", white, upcountry demographic.  In the author's graphic, he says that those counties that gave Clinton 55% or more of the vote are predominantly Appalachian/Ozark or with ties to that region.

But a closer look suggests that Obama's support may be far narrower than Clinton's.  Namely, that counties in primary states - repeat, PRIMARY states - that gave Obama 55% or more of the vote are in the Chicago region, the Potomac, or the Black Belt - a rich agricultural region stretching across the South in a wide curve that had been, until recently, majority African American.

Counties that Gave Obama 55% or more of the Vote in Primaries

African American Population Percentage by County

So, if Obama's support is more limited than his campaign states, why are people over at Daily Kos and on other Obama blogs saying things like this:

I don't care about White, Working Class Blue-Collar Voters.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/14/ 10332/0089


We won't need your votes beginning with this election.
We'll have enough votes elsewhere.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/5/ 14/10332/0089/47#c47


I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but you wonder if anyone in West Virginia ever wakes up in the morning, takes a look at the incredible poverty throughout the state and asks "Do you think we maybe need to open our minds a bit?"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/ 202419/310/571/515058

Finally, the beauty contest primary last night in Nebraska serves to underscore that Obama's caucus victories, while impressive, do not reflect the percentage of support on the ground.  Yes, Obama won these Western caucuses in dramatic fashion.  David Axelrod is to be credited for a superb understanding of the delegate process - while Mark Penn is to have his picture in the dictionary next to "stupid".  Still, there have now been three Western states that have held a primary and a caucus.  In both Washington and Nebraska, Obama won the caucuses by huge margins, two to one or more, but won the primary by only a few points.  In Texas, Obama won the caucus, but lost the primary.

Washington      Caucus                  Primary
Obama        21,768      67.56%            354,112     51.17%
Clinton         10,038             31.15%            315,744     45.63%

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state .php?year=2008&fips=53&f=0&o ff=0&elect=1

Nebraska        Caucus                  Primary
Obama        26,126      67.56%            46,279      49.36%
Clinton         12,445      32.18%            43,614      46.52%   

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state .php?year=2008&fips=31&f=0&o ff=0&elect=1

Texas           Caucus                  Primary
Obama        23,907      56.18%            1,362,476      47.39%
Clinton         18,603      43.72%            1,462,734     50.88%

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state .php?year=2008&fips=48&f=0&o ff=0&elect=1

What all of this suggests to me is that Obama's support is neither as deep nor as wide as his promoters advertise.  Not only is Obama's support more limited than believed, but the Obama campaign also appears willing to dismiss core Democratic demographics.  There are no caucuses in the general election.  And while Obama's supporters are talking "landslide" in November, I am fearful of another Dukakis debacle.

Tags: 2008 election, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, West Virginia, working class (all tags)



Re: Tippage

For a poor working stiff.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 10:15AM | 0 recs
Analysis flawed

This has come up a lot, but some quick points:

(1) Saying we don't have to just rely on blue-collar votes and hispanics doesn't mean we don't need them. It just means the Democratic party has become MORE inclusive.

(2) County by county maps suck unless normalized for population. In the GE, winning 1 out of 100 counties with a margin of 500,000 votes will be better than winning 99/100 counties with a margin of 3,000 votes each, because delegates will not be allocated by CD or county, but by state.

(3) You do realize that basically anyone can post at Daily Kos, right? You cite a quote from an article there as if it was somehow reflective of the community sentiment, but it has like 8 recs. I could post a diary here that says, "Forget the black vote, forget the upper class Dem vote. Union and White vote all the way!", but that wouldn't mean that Clinton was dismissing AAs or educated voters. And we don't believe she is, even though her rhetoric is constantly filled with appeals to middle America and average working people.

(4) Everyone is afraid of losing in November. And we can all post concerns about the other candidate. For Obama, it may be Wright, middle-class/middle-America voters, and experience. For Clinton it may be stratospheric negatives, Clinton baggage, the inept handling of the primary, or even fears of what might happen if she wins (eg, Iran). Our candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, and 40 million people agree it is awfully close.

(5) Note that despite a lot of his delegates being based on caucuses, more people have, nonetheless, voted for Obama. (Assuming we spot him some reasonable number of the uncommitted if we're counting MI/FL).  I'm actually fairly certain that, counting MI and FL, Hillary will end up ahead in the end in the popular vote, but if it's 50.1% vs 49.9%, that doesn't exactly point to her coalition being broad and his weak.

Ultimately, here's the bottom line: Obama and Clinton each do very well with certain voter demographics, all of which are important to a November victory. We're not winning without AAs, and we're not winning without working class Dems. And that's why we have a primary process, to hopefully select someone we can all get behind.

Nearly 50/50. There's no loser here; we're only going to have a first among winners. Two great candidates, one great party, a great November.

by mattw 2008-05-14 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Analysis flawed

OMG.  I just read your first point about "blue collar workers" and Hispanics" and as soon as you stated "we" need to be inclusive, I will just ask you what part of the Dem party do these people need to be incluced that they aren't already?  I stopped reading after your first point.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-14 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Analysis flawed
We are we -
And they are the proverbial "they".
However, if they behave we'll let them vote for us.
by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Analysis flawed

That is the most absurd interpretation of what I said that I can't help but wonder if your whole purpose here is to be as divisive as possible.

by mattw 2008-05-14 02:26PM | 0 recs

it is really all about the diarist (note how quick he was able to offer actual proof for his comment about ned lamont, but has yet to offer any proof for his insistence that the obama campaign is writing off working class white voters)...

by bored now 2008-05-14 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Analysis flawed

The OP included this quote:

But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

And the diarist said:

Whether Obama supporters like it or not, there is ample evidence to suggest that Obama has difficulty drawing non-African American working class voters - not just white, but Hispanic, too.  Is it racism?  Perhaps in small part, but a larger part may be that his message does not resonate with working class voters - African American blue-collar voters excepted.

And I said:

Saying we don't have to just rely on blue-collar votes and hispanics doesn't mean we don't need them. It just means the Democratic party has become MORE inclusive.

My whole point was that the quote the diarist used isn't stating that blue-collar workers and hispanics are somehow expendable. The fact that we also have other people - youth, AAs, latte liberals, whatever - added to the coalition that makes up the party makes us stronger.

I do not accept that Obama's performance in the primary versus Clinton is indicative in any way of troubles he will have against McCain. Just because there are certain demographics support Clinton strongly, there is no reason to assume those demographics, denied their first choice candidate, will jump ship and vote McSame or not vote.

So I think the whole point is bunk.

Not really sure what you read into it.

by mattw 2008-05-14 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Clinton skipped and didn't campaign in many states that Obama visited. In fact, Obama talked to more Americans than Clinton has.

It was only when Obama started winning that Clinton:

- Wanted to count all Americans (except for caucuses)
- Cared about MI & FL (before she was against counting them)

It would have been nice to have a two term first Lady and two term Senator care about caucuses and all Americans in every states before she needed them.

You can have selective memory but I've watched every race and Obama has killed Clinton in more states than Clinton has won.

Facts are a stubborn thing.

by comingawakening 2008-05-14 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

I am sorry to say this but I am appalled by your response. This diary is about Obama, our presumptive nominee and the problems he is facing. And you turn around and make it a Clinton hatred message?

Do you have any sense of what is important? I dont like Obama but I would rather analyze things for Nov than hate Obama. You might want to analyze things for Nov rather than hating on Clinton.

by Sandeep 2008-05-14 10:38AM | 0 recs
i seriously question your assumptions...

i do not, in any way, believe this diary is an honest assessment about barack's chances in november.  it is pure angst, riven by the fear of recognizing that the candidate johnny supported was not supported by the people who voted in the primaries...

by bored now 2008-05-14 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Nopers

Care to explain why Obama had far less support in the TX, WA, and NE primaries - even though two of them didn't count?  And why would so many West Virginians bother to vote when all the pundits have called it already?

Hey, Jack, I posted a diary last week saying that Obama was the presumptive nominee - but that doesn't appear to be good enough.  You have to not only continue to vilify Clinton, but also to ignore some very real issues that may defeat Obama in November.

So, go ahead.
Call me names.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 10:59AM | 0 recs
some people don't bother to read the diary...


by RisingTide 2008-05-14 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Let me know when you stop lying to yourself when saying that this Dairy is about Obama. Holding Obama to a different standard than you hold Clinton is not democratic of you.

Where you upset the your candidate skipped all those states that were meaningless when she was up? Are you upset that your candidate backed out of her agreement to skip MI and FL before they counted?

I will vote for Clinton if she wins but she ran a horrible campaign and might run the country in the same way. Thank god we discovered her hubris now before the marriage was consummated.

by comingawakening 2008-05-14 11:13AM | 0 recs

This diary is not about Obama. It is about Clinton, and how she is/was a better choice.

If we want to talk about November, I'll give you some highlights:

    • Obama is polling 4-7 points ahead of McCain, decently outside the margin of error, nationally
    • Democrats are enjoying record levels of registration nationwide and absolutely crushing Republicans at this
    • Obama has built a 50 state machine. Even in WV, he has a bunch of field offices open.
    • Obama is the best Democratic fundraiser of all time. McCain is broke, and even violating campaign finance laws.
    • Obama's numbers reflect the fact that he has been fighting a 2-front battle.

If you consider how entrenched the nomination battle has been, and Obama is still leading McCain by 7, it is not inconceivable to me that he wins by +15 in November.

McCain, by contrast, had enjoyed a free pass. When he is painted as a Bush sycophant who is going senile, and loves big government and empire policy, he is going down in flames. I'm perfectly happy to let the nomination continue, especially if the candidates focus on registering voters. The concern trolling is totally unnecessary.

by mattw 2008-05-14 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Wrong

If you think Obama is going to win by 15 points in November -
You had better go outside and get some fresh air.

Such thinking is what I fear is behind the dismissive attitude towards certain core Dem Demographics.

And BTW, I never said that working class voters were the only or even the primary Democratic group to be concerned about.  But it sure bodes ill to dismiss them - with or without the qualifier "just".

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 11:55AM | 0 recs
good thing the obama campaign is not doing that...

but thanks for your concern!!!

by bored now 2008-05-14 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

No question, despite the polls showing Obama beating McCain, we still have much work to do. It's time for us to all pull together to beat McCain.

by fugazi 2008-05-14 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

If polls determined the presidency, Gore would be president.

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-14 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Right. Let's take nothing for granted. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work beating McCain.

by fugazi 2008-05-14 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Tippage supplied.  It's about votes (in the EC).

by ChitownDenny 2008-05-14 10:29AM | 0 recs
Don't quote Kossacks

as campaign people.

they aren't

they are partisans.

and some of them are backwater hicks, and others are bigoted liberals.  not most though.

by RisingTide 2008-05-14 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't quote Kossacks

One of the quotes comes from the title of a recced diary.

I am aware that Daily Kos is not the be-all and end-all; however, if has the highest visits - by far - of political blogs and can be considered reflective of the mood of a PORTION of Dem party activists.

If not, why do so many Dem candidates and officials go begging for political and/or financial support there?

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

I still fail to see why there is this idea that Obama cannot win these voters against McCain.

Yes, when they have the choice between Obama and Clinton, they like Clinton more. She's a fine candidate and built a strong coalition.

But if they backed Clinton, why would they turn around and support McCain? McCain holds none of Clinton's values, supports none of her ideas and is a far inferior candidate to her.

It's like saying I prefer McDonalds over Burger King, but if there are no more McDonalds I'm going to go eat at Taco Bell.

by SFValues 2008-05-14 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Agreed and disagreed both:-)

I agree that Obama can win these voters against McCain. But I disagree with the notion that they wont turn around and support McCain. As you said, McCain is far inferior candidate as compared to her. But some people think Obama is more inferior candidate as compared to McCain.

We are partisans so we see things as Democrats and Republicans. Many people are Americans first and they want a better, more experienced, more qualified president irrespective of which party the person is from.

Now one can define what is "better", what is "more experienced" and what is "more qualified". But the definition varies from person to person.

by Sandeep 2008-05-14 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Agreed and disagreed both:-)

If a voter is going to choose a candidate based upon experience, then McCain beats everyone but Robert Byrd.

However, Clinton does have that sense of experience (more than I think she has, but my opinion only), so I must concede that.

But really, what has McCain said to anyone that appealed to them yet? Conservative, independent or liberal? Also, while Clinton is choice #1 I think her similarity to Obama on the issues will make him a suitable second choice for these voters.

by SFValues 2008-05-14 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

I think McCain appeals to people (NOT Democrats) on national security and potentially on the economy.  If it appears that the economy is on the right track by this fall, that is.  Then if John McCain is able to throw independents a few bones - like by claiming clean energy is a national security issue - then the choice to most people becomes:

Candidate A) A competent, better version of George Bush with a few more policy positions that actually seem sensible as compared to GWB
Candidate B) A break from the past - more liberal programs

A conservative Democrat may go with Candidate A in either case of Obama or Clinton.  But when McCain claims to represent them with stuff like the gas tax holiday (or by securing us from our enemies) it may be important for Obama to not let wedge issues like that drive the debate by opposing small relief for drivers, or wanting to sit down face to face with our enemies, etc.

by mikes101 2008-05-14 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Good points.

However, I think voters are going to reject any version of George Bush, better or not.

by SFValues 2008-05-14 11:19AM | 0 recs
obviously, the diarist believes that hillary...

won't support barack, so her votes will go to mccain.  right?

polling shows that the number of democrats who would fail to support either democrat fall within normal patterns of democratic support for the democratic nominee since exit polling began.  given that this was to be expected, the attempt to sow dissatisfaction is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the democratic nominee.  johnny can't support barack.  we are supposed to be heart-broken, a-parent-LY...

by bored now 2008-05-14 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Apparently -

You enjoy ad hominem attacks.

You know, it doesn't matter how much Hillary endorses Obama, even if she is Veep.  Voters focus on who is on the top of the ticket.  If Obama continues to fail to address concerns of working class Democrats, he will not likely carry them in the fall.

Oh, but I forgot.
That doesn't matter.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 11:03AM | 0 recs
i see nothing ad hominem in my comment...

i would have thought the comment so obviously facetious that everyone would have understood (the coupling reference was a dead give away, i would have thought).  i have no idea whether you missed it or are simply avoiding the real issues (funny that you accuse others of that).

you offer NO EVIDENCE -- none, zilch, nothing -- to support your absurd claim that democrats or their nominee have written off working class white voters.  i don't share any of your assumptions here, nor do i find a serious attempt on your part to a.) objectively present facts, b.) rationally search for answers, or c.) logically draw some conclusions.  not that i've ignored all the work you seemed to put into this diary, which is why i concluded that you must have done so as a catharsis.  hence my expression of regret for your loss...

by bored now 2008-05-14 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: i see nothing ad hominem in my comment...

I offered plenty in my diary -
You simply chose to ignore them.

Scanning thru YOUR comments,
I don;t see a single quote or link.
Speaking of facts - -

PS - It seems a lot of folks are having trouble with their "Caps" key today.  One person's is stuck and yours doesn't work at all.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: i see nothing ad hominem in my comment...

Oh wait a minute -


Your "Caps" key seems to come and go.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 11:28AM | 0 recs
i'm sorry, i must have missed it...

even though i've read the diary twice now.  since it's already in there, could you copy and paste any evidence cited in your diary that the OBAMA CAMPAIGN (you know, just like you cited for the lamont campaign) has written off working class white voters?

i already know that hillary argues this is true (also absent of any evidence).  so the real question is, are you merely repeating hillary's talking points or do you have credible evidence from the campaign (again, like you cited for the lamont campaign) for your concerns?  

by bored now 2008-05-14 11:38AM | 0 recs
WV crucial, NE a "beauty contest?"

I name thee concern troll.

by McNasty 2008-05-14 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: WV crucial, NE a "beauty contest?"
And I name thee "Monsieur Hubris".
Or is it "Madame"?
by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

There have been about 4,285 diaries about this Brazile quote so apparently the point hasn't been driven home:



If you think this is the position of Barack Obama, then I'd be happy for you to explain his presence in Michigan, where he's making his pitch (so to speak) to auto workers and others in the white working class.

Obama wants their votes, and I'd bet anything that he intends to fight for them.  

by freedom78 2008-05-14 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Donna Brazile does not support Obama.
Snow is not cold.
Rain is not wet.

PS - I think you "Caps" key needs thome oil.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Brazile doesn't work for Obama, but she definately supports him.

People seem to have forgotten that it was Brazille that first painted Bill Clinton as a racist. It took on a life of its own afterwards, but she's the one that got the ball rolling.

by SFValues 2008-05-14 10:53AM | 0 recs
voters made up their own midns

...some of them.

by RisingTide 2008-05-14 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: voters made up their own midns

No doubt, and I'm not saying that she told people what to think. I just believe that she put the story into the media and they ran with it from there.

Whether or not you agree is your choice to make. I just happen to be an Obama supporter that doesn't believe Bill was trying to be racist.

by SFValues 2008-05-14 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Feel free to re-read what I said and to point out where I said anything about Brazile being a supporter of any candidate.  I don't care who she supports, because she doesn't speak for any campaign, she doesn't set policy for any campaign, and she doesn't have a voice in which voters the campaigns go after.  Her statement about Obama being able to win with a new coalition has absolutely nothing to do with what the Obama campaign plans to do in courting working class whites.

by freedom78 2008-05-14 10:54AM | 0 recs
we're sorry your candidate lost...

it's easy to think that she might have won if she had run a better campaign.  hell, she might have won if all those people she employed worked as hard or as smart as she and her family did.  as you absorb that difficult reality, you have (it seems) two alternatives: you can identify a path by which hillary can actually win the nomination OR you can try to tear down the person who actually won more votes, more states, more delegates, more supporters, etc etc.

the obama campaign certain appreciates your concerns.  on the internet, we call these kinds of diaries concern trolls, for very good reason.  if you really want to ease your mind, instead of sow FUD, here's some facts:

* barack polls the same amongst democrats as bill clinton.  you might remember bill; he actually won the presidency.  hillary may have written him off for the (democratic) strum thurmond model, but there's no reason why we should.

* no democrat since lyndon johnson has won the white male vote.  we have, you may realize, actually elected democrats to the white house since then.

* the actual proportion of white voters to the electorate has been shrinking over time.

so thanks for your concern.  just because barack doesn't appeal to you does not mean that he has rejected the white working class.  you have actually provided not a lick of proof for your conclusion.  which is fine, this is america.  you don't need no stickin' facts to jump to a conclusion.

but don't expect the rest of us to jump with you.  sure, i understand that losing sucks.  the sad reality is that even if you are successful in tearing down the presumptive nominee, you've still lost.  if you're looking for company, then you're on the right path.  they say misery loves company, so i understand if that's your goal.

some of us, though, would actually like to elect a democratic president.  you know, one that can actually win with the rules as they are written.  we can't all change the rules at a drop of the hat just because they aren't benefiting us as we expected them to...

by bored now 2008-05-14 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Please Forward This -

To Senator Lamont.

His campaign and his supporters followed a similar trajectory.
Who needs working class Dems anyway?

The parallels are disturbingly similar.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 10:54AM | 0 recs
again, so sorry for your loss...

we differ considerably on why ned lamont lost.  i'd have said he sat back on his laurels and allowed lieberman to outwork him.  in spades.  i had no idea that he "wrote off white working class voters" as you pretend the obama campaign has.  again, i understand that it's difficult to think straight when you feel such grief.  we all understand...

by bored now 2008-05-14 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Selective Memory

"Waterbury is where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil."

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5 267288&nav=menu29_2

Tom Swan - Lamont friggin' campaign manager - disses an entire city that happens to be working class and to have supported Lieberman in the primary.  Lamont was forced to apologize.

Yessirree, let's trash those working class rednecks.
But wait - then they don't vote for us.
Boo hooo hoooooo.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 11:08AM | 0 recs
so you actually know how to use facts...

and i see that you make the same mistake with me (assuming that i know something about ned lamont's campaign even though i clearly wrote "i had no idea that he 'wrote off white working class voters'") that you are making with the obama campaign.

but at least we have a place to start.  now if you can just find a quote from plouffe or axelrod similar to the swan quote, you would begin to support your assertion that the obama campaign is writing off working class whites.  and when you post that quote, then we can really talk about why anyone would do that.

but you seem to assume that barack obama is ned lament did, or something.  you seem to think that you can make some ridiculous charge and that we should all just accept it at face value and discuss it.

i think you are hurting because, well, losing sucks, and just lashing out at the cause of your loss.  many apologies if i'm wrong about your "reasoning"...

by bored now 2008-05-14 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hewwo?

Do I have to get all "bitter" on you?
Or did you forget that, too.

Never mind, that's not an Axelrod quote.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 11:30AM | 0 recs
If we pretend..

That white working class voters in specific regions, are the same as all white working class voters.

That white working class voters will not defect to the Republican side as they have a tendency to do.

That "Clinton" loyalty does not exist.

And that "gender bias" is not a voting motivation that positively impacted Clinton.  (And would be absent in the General Election.)

And that the saturation coverage of Wright, and heavy coverage of bitter did not have an impact.
And that a similar set of coverage of Clinton would not hurt her with, the high negatives about intergrity and trust associated with her.

If we pretended about all of the above. We could come to the conclusion the sky was falling and we could never win in November with Obama.

But personally I don't pretend it is so.  And I am a little suspicious of a Clinton campaign that wants to rely on a few handfulls of states,  and a narrow section of voters.  I do not see anything to indicate that WV will not vote for the older, white, male, war hero.  Or that we should be hinging our hopes on how many Democrats won with West Virginia and its 4 Electoral votes.  Seems like one candidate in her followers have a problem with evolving, adapting, and Change.  

by Tumult 2008-05-14 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

I take exception with the last paragraph of this diary. While the diarist is correct in pointing out that Obama's support is neither as deep or as wide as advertised, the Obama campaign is not unaware of this and will take steps to address it. Campaign managers over at Daily Kos have the luxury of dismissing certain blocs of voters; Plouffe and Axelrod have no such luxury. Judging by the exemplary manner in which they have run this campaign to date, I have every confidence that they are aware of the problem and taking steps to correct it.

Off topic rant: Interest in the Democratic primary campaign has been so intense that I rarely see diaries on how weak a candidate McCain is. I have no clear impression of exactly which voters will come out for him. He can't move right without risking losing the center and he can't move to the center without losing the right. McCain's problem is much more serious than Obama's because Obama's can be corrected.  

by STUBALL 2008-05-14 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: We Don't Need Yer Steenkin' Votes

Well said. Excellent diary. Rec'ed.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-14 11:48AM | 0 recs
yes, brazile

herself said..."we can win this without blue collar workers...we've got AA's and the  youth". The rest of us are just so much dead meat.

I'm going to take them on their word.  They don't want me, HRC supporters, latinos, elders, and many others.  Ok fine!  He gets nothing of my valuable time, my money, my ability to influence people.

But when McSame wins in a landslide in November, I will put the blame squarely on Barack Obama, his supporters, his enablers and the democratic party for dissing half its membership, and for accusing half of America of being racists because they didn't vote for him.  I know Obama will blame Clinton, but he will soon run out of that avenue as people understand what a poor choice he is against McCain.

by 4justice 2008-05-14 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I Waver -

I am shocked that in the past few years a certain segment of the Democratic Party has accused Lieberman of racism and, now, the Clintons.  I have no illusions about Lieberman and his support for the Iraq War, but he has had one of the most progressive records in the Senate on civil rights issues.  And, yes, he did go down South during the 1960s at a time when that was a rather dangerous thing for a Yankee Jew to do.  And in this campaign cycle, the new racists are the Clintons.  People who have worked a lifetime for racial justice are dragged through the mud.  It makes my blood boil.

So, I agree with you that many on the Obama side have done much to permanently alienate Clinton supporters.  However, it seems highly unlikely that she will win the nomination - so what does one do?  Like I said - I waver.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-14 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: yes, brazile

So you're not going to vote for Obama over something Donna Brazille said?

You're willing to allow McCain to re-shape the supreme court over something Donna Brazille said?

You're willing to watch more soldiers die over something Donna Brazille said?

You're willing to walk away from universal healthcare over something Donna Brazille said?

Hate the supporters, not the candidate nor the issues.

by SFValues 2008-05-14 12:12PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads