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.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
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.