My thoughts on Yesterday's Defeat

I think Senator Obama's problem with working class folks is real. He is just not connecting with them. He needs to put more meat on his message and he needs to talk to them more and relate to them. His message, heavy on post-materialism, works just fine with those that do not worry about their job security or have enough education and resources to analyze the validity and reliability of his message. However, with those who are struggling economically on a daily basis, that message has so far failed. Working class folks don't have the luxury or the time or the energy to engage in high-minded analysis of his message because they are just too busy trying to make ends meet.

I don't want to downplay the race factor. I believe it has some impact; however, i do not think that it is mostly because of it that he cannot connect with working class folks (supporters of Hillary Clinton can also argue that people are not voting for her because he is a woman and because of sexism). If we engage in that kind of blame and reasoning, and we begin labeling everyone who votes against Senator Obama as a racist, well we are doomed. I believe that a candidate has to go before the American people and make his case and present his ideas and beliefs and convince them. The candidate has to sweat, shout, lose his/her voice, and fight for those votes. That shows respect i believe and in return the American people will grant you the benefit of the doubt. I also believe that the majority of Americans are decent people who are ready to listen and more importantly are ready to be convinced.

I also think that his connection problem with working class folks exists beyond the Appalachian region. In Missouri for example, Senator Obama lost every rural county. He won 5 counties out of 115. If Missouri is the bellwether state of American politics as they say, well that is not a good indicator. In Tennessee, he won only 9 counties (mostly urban centers in the middle and western part of the state) out of 95 counties. In Texas, he won 24 counties (mostly urban centers) out of 254 counties. In California, he won 18 counties out of 58. In Florida (i am aware that this state does count but i am using it just to show the trend), he won 8 counties and almost all of them were in the panhandle region of the state, which will go republican anyway in the fall).  In Massachusetts, hardly an Appalachian state, he won 5 out of 15 counties--if you break these results by towns, it looks even worse since Massachusetts has about 300 towns and the Senator won about 90 or barely 1/3 of the towns. In Pennsylvania, he won 7 counties out of about 55--if you include townships and boroughs as they do in PA, the picture gets even worse. And yesterday, he lost every single county. So he lost the rural vote in the Appalachian states as well as in other states.

The trend here indicates that wherever he lost a state, he lost it because he failed to be competitive in rural counties and outside the urban centers even in states that he won like Missouri. This trend started before Rev. Wright and i think it got worse because of him and other unfortunate statements. My dad spent all his life in electoral politics. He managed campaigns (senatorial ones) and worked in presidential ones. He did that since he returned from the Korean War and until he retired in early 1990s (he died recently of Alzheimer). He always said that no one should really pay attention to presidential polls until the month of June/July or Labor Day. However, he also said that everyone should pay attention to the county-by-county voting data broken down by gender, ethnicity, income and education level. If there is a voting trend in some counties in a given state and that trend repeats itself in another state and then another, you can bet that it is a national one. I myself did work (stats analysis mostly) in a presidential/senatorial campaign before i moved to the private sector and i think he was right on the money. I see a trend here that keeps repeating itself. I don't have enough data or the time to analyze or assess whether this trend is getting stronger over time, but i feel like it is. I really hope that i am wrong on this one. However, if this trend is not corrected, it could solidify and become very hard to reverse, or it would cost a lot of money, resources and time (which we don't have)to correct it.

I think the Obama campaign made a serious mistake by not going to WV and campaigning there (it won't cost us the primary at all since the primaries are almost over). WV is a low-dollar media market. Running TV or radio ads is very cheap. Since he was going to lose that state anyway, he could have gone there and test-run new messages crafted directly for the working class folks. That would have allowed his campaign to have some serious fresh data whose analysis would have indicated  what they should focus on and where and how. I also think that he could have run post-election day focus groups to see how those messages have worked and if not why. This would have allowed his campaign to sharpen those messages at low cost and then take them to another state and try them again. By mid-summer and prior to the convention, the campaign would have had a series of well-articulated, well-crafted and well-balanced messages ready to be propagated on the national level.

I think we can learn more from a defeat than a victory and this defeat could have allowed the campaign to gather valuable data. Of course they can run some focus groups now and try some new messages, but they will not have the benefit of knowing how those messages would have worked in real life scenario since they would not have post-election polls as a frame of reference. Moreover, it is always better to try and test new message on skeptical groups than on those who are already ready to vote for you.

Furthermore, i think Senator Obama has been using the same message of Hope and Change for about 12 or 16 months now. I think that message has lost its newfangledness and shinning appeal. I believe that he needs to add to that message a serious layer of economic solutions that shows that he understands the problems of most Americans and that he relates to them at the gut level. This is what Senator Clinton has been able to do recently and this is why, i think, she has become a better candidate than 2 or 3 months ago. Adding a new and fresh economic message would in fact enhance his message of Hope and Change rather than diminishing it.

I think this is the failure of Senator Obama recently. Since Texas and the Rev. Wright crap, he started to look a bit aloof to me and he is running way too confident. Not going to WV almost showed that he does not care about those folks. Quite frankly, if you do not ask people for their vote, they won't give it to you (i don't want to say it but it was borderline disrespectful to them). His campaign needs to correct this quickly before the cement hardens.

As old timers would say, the American people don't expect the president to solve all their problems; they know that he can't, and they know that at the gut level. However, they expect their president to at least understand their worries, problems and to  empathize with them. No one illustrated this power of understanding the lives of normal folks better than FDR who was pure blue blood as they say and came from an aristocratic family. When FDR died in Warm Springs, GA, they put his coffin in a train to bring him back to DC. People gathered along the railroad tracks to say goodbye and the train stopped at every railroad stations. During one of those stops, a journalist traveling with  the coffin of the president noticed a well-dressed man standing tall on the railroad platform and he was crying like a baby. So the curious journalist approached him and asked him "Sir do you personally know the president?" And the man looked at the journalist and said, "No. but he knew me." If an aristocrat like FDR could have related to normal folks to make them feel like he knew them personally, i think Senator Obama could achieve the same thing with working class folks with a little more hard work.

Finally, the republicans are a wounded beast and they won't go down without a nasty fight. Moreover, all macro-indicators are against them (presidential approval rating, wrong track/right track numbers, macro-economic indicators, the war and so forth), and they know that. So, their strategy is going to be as simple as possible. If Senator Obama does not correct this trend of losing rural counties in almost every state, their campaign strategy is going to keep the margin of victory of the senator small enough in the urban centers and then try to sweep the rural areas. If they are able to do that, they could win some serious states, make our task pretty darn hard and November 4th will be a long night for all of us.



Display:


It's almost as if... he needs a surrogate. (2.00 / 1)

Hmmm... where could he find someone with a lot of political clout who connects to these white, working class voters with lower educational levels.  Someone who has near identical politics and an interest in Obama becoming president.

I'm sure there's someone.  It will come to me.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM EST

Re: It's almost as if... he needs a surrogate. (none / 0)


The one who persuaded all those people to vote for Kerry?  Good choice!
by killjoy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's almost as if... he needs a surrogate. (none / 0)

NOBODY liked Kerry. He was a last-minute pick and a terrible choice. You think OBAMA is bad? Kerry was a million times worse. It was a personal dislike by the same people Obama is having trouble with now. The only difference is that Obama isn't stiff as a board.


If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.
by vcalzone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's almost as if... he needs a surrogate. (2.00 / 1)

Dude,

Did you just push HRC foward.  Wow if so cool.

daivd


by giusd on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

... well yeah. (none / 0)

I'm not stupid, David.

I've been watching the campaign as closely as you have and am not blind.  Hillary Clinton freaking rocks at pitching her case to voters.  If she didn't, this would have been over much sooner.

Don't get all misty-eyed on me; I think this Dream Ticket stuff is extremely misguided, but everyone wins if Obama wins the presidency and Clinton becomes a Senate elder.

Democrats have been strange in the past... they've kinda backed off to let the presidential candidates run on their own.

Quite frankly I'd like to see the entire party mobilize, with all the presidential nominees (including Kucinich and Gravel) out there campaigning like crazy.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts on Yesterday's Defeat (none / 0)

Not true. Washington. Oregon. Idaho. Montana. Much of the west is white, relatively poor, relatively low educational levels, and very into him.

He has an Appalachian problem, no doubt. As Dracomicron points out there's one prominent politician who could help him considerably with that.


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:29 PM EST

Such a predictible response! (none / 0)

See my post below.  Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that Obama's support in low attended venues in Red States points to his ability to carry such places as Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's predictable? (none / 0)

Oh, right, people in red states don't count. I forgot.

Ok,

Washington
Iowa
Colorado
Nebraska

The point of the post is that Obama has problems with white working class voters. The fact that Idaho will go red has NO impact of the truth value of that statement, which is low.


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, your evidence is irrelevant except for maybe (none / 0)

Iowa.  But, Iowa has often been a contrarian place.  Obama did not win the Colorado, Nebraska, and Washington caucuses because of white working class voters.  He won them because of white activists liberals and young voters - the Gary Hart coalition once again.  Even in Iowa, this was his base and it was sufficient to get him 39% of the vote after a very heavy importation of Iowa college students from other states who are entitled to vote in the Iowa caucus.

He could well win Iowa and Washington but these places voted twice for Clinton and even voted for Dukakis.  He could well win Colorado but this state was trending Democratic well before this primary campaign (see 2004 and 2006 state legislative and US congressional elections).  The idea that he could win Nebraska is simply laughable.

I think of many Obama supporters like the equivalent of the rabid dot.com investors of the late 90s.  They refused to consider the evidence of bad financial fundamentals as indicative of anything because they were sure that all of the old rules didn't matter anymore.


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No it does go beyond that (none / 0)

He has a problem with southern white rural areas, with appalachia, and with rust belt rural areas.  He also has a problem with people over 65+.  He has a huge problem with female bubba voters

The edwards endorsement will help some but it can solve all of his problems overnight.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No it does go beyond that (none / 0)

And i read someplace the washington crowd is now calling them Hillary democrats.  But my gues is they mean working class women and this is the demographic that BO needs to catch because when women vote (or vote democrat) democratics win.

david


by giusd on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd prefer tthe term Hillary Democrat (none / 0)

to being called knuckle dragging dumbass redneck white trash.


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd prefer tthe term Hillary Democrat (none / 0)

Funny very good.

dg


by giusd on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks! (none / 0)


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very, very good diary (2.00 / 1)

I especially liked your comments about your father's insights.  Someone on MyDD posted historical tables of number of counties won in presidential elections for the last 40 years or so. Although Republicans won more counties in all elections, their margins were not large in the elections won by Democrats (76, 92, 96).  Huge imbalances in counties won were evidenced in the losing elections.

Like it or not, Democrats do not win when they fail to win sufficient numbers of voters outside of larger metropolitan areas.  I know some Obama supporters will point to caucus results in sparsely populated states to tell you that your inferences are wrong, but your evidence is far more convincing.


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:59:43 PM EST

Except for the condescension, good analysis (none / 0)

It's not about education level, which means in the present context reads like a bumper sticker:

Too ignorant to see how great Obama is.

Better stuff that where the sun don't shine.

Obama's problem -- aside from racism, also a real problem but about which Obama can do little, and his pro-gun control history -- with the white and hispanic working class is the result of cultural and substantive populism:

1. Cultural: He comes off as caring way too much about phrasing his seemingly precious words exactly right. This is, in short, the "Professor Obama" problem.

  1. Real: He opposed the gas tax holiday as 'pandering' (in this case that horrible pandering would've put a few twenties into working class wallets).
  2. Real: He condescendingly ascribed white working class opposition to several policies that liberal elites love as the result not of thought but of a long-term emotional/psychological syndrome.
  3. Real: He is a neoliberal on trade (not that Hillary isn't too), basically a free trader with some liberal, legalistic, ineffectual conditions placed on it. On something they care about and know about fairly well, this likely strikes a lot of working class people as inadequate and 'same old same old'.

If it was just style/culture Obama would have a better chance of digging himself out of his difficulties. But the image/style and the politics tend to reinforce each other.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:12:06 PM EST

The "counties" argument is bogus (none / 0)

It's as dishonest as the Red/Blue map that the wingnuts put out after 2000/2004. It's about number of votes. I don't care if we lose 99 counties, if we win the largest county and it puts us over the top, then that's all that matters.


by highgrade on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:13:02 PM EST

Re: The "counties" argument is bogus (2.00 / 1)

Actually, it is not. If you carry one big center and you lose every other county, you open yourself to an easy electoral strategy. Your opponent would try to keep your margin of victory small in the urban center and than get his numbers up in the surrounding counties where you don't compete.  Money-wise, this is also a low cost strategy for your opponent.

Look at how Obama lost Ohio despite the fact that he won Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. These are the most populated urban centers in Ohio; He carried all these big cities where most people live and he lost. Why? Because Hillary was successful to keep his margin of victory small and within a striking distance and she then went on and won the rural counties and this is how she won.

Look at how Bush won Missouri and Ohio in 2000 and  2004 and you will realize that i am talking about.

I think as Obama supporters we can and should be able to talk in all honesty. Yes, we support Obama during this election, but we also should be able to criticize him and his campaign.


by likelihood zero on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are correct! (none / 0)

See my post above about how someone at MyDD posted historical tables showing Democrats won the presidency when they captured a fair share (although fewer than Republicans) of counties and lost when the Republicans had a huge imbalance in counties won.


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:05:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are correct! (none / 0)

Can you please post the link to those longitudinal/historical tables?

I am too lazy to do the work for myself and go over all the past elections. I can remember the 1988 elections, but nothing else except 2000 and 2004. So, if you find it please post the link.


by likelihood zero on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That was just as obvious in Indiana (none / 0)

His margin from Indianapolis was huge and he won a number of secondary cities like Ft. Wayne and South Bend but Clinton kept his margins down enough in those secondary cities and urban counties like Lake (10% margin for Obama despite Gary).  I don't know whether Obama won a single rural county in that state, either.


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That was just as obvious in Indiana (none / 0)

I believe he won 2 rural counties (Elkhart and St Joseph county which are in the Illinois media market).


by likelihood zero on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hardly possible (none / 0)

Listen to the poster below.


by lombard on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:07:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts on Yesterday's Defeat (none / 0)

It's his joke on Colbert.  Want my endorsement?  Give me a jet ski!


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:01:44 PM EST

Re: My thoughts on Yesterday's Defeat (none / 0)

Oh geez, sorry, posted this in the wrong window.  Too.  Many.  Blogs.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:02:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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.