Wednesday, 04.23.08
Whose Party?
Photo Courtesy of flickr user Mr. T in DC under a creative commons license
The State of The Race
April 2008
Marc Ambinder sifts through delegate counts, the Pennsylvania data and looks toward the weeks ahead.
Limping to Victory
April 2008
The Worst of All Worlds for the Dems
April 2008
Andrew Sullivan sees Clinton's nine-point victory as just enough to keep her in the race.
Does Hillary Clinton represent the future of the Democratic party? At first glance, the idea seems laughable. As Ruy Teixeira has observed, the white working class - the core of Clinton's support in Pennsylvania and in the Democratic electorate writ large - is shrinking as a share of the U.S. population, while the mass upper middle class, a crucially important of Obama's base (and one that enjoys outsized cultural and political influence), is expanding at a rapid clip. And though Clinton has won a large share of the growing Latino vote, it's possible - as a number of Obama partisans have suggested - that this could be a function of some combination of '90s nostalgia and a reluctance on the part of new immigrants and second-generation Americans to embrace a politics of hope and change, both effects that will presumably erode over time.
Yet there's another possibility. Suppose the white working class, which is to say the Anglo white working class, is actually expanding to include Latinos of a similar cultural disposition and economic status. Look beyond the color-coded demographic projections and it's at least plausible that a working-class coalition built around an Anglo-Latino bloc will more than hold its own in raw numbers against the emerging Obama coalition of social liberals of all classes, black voters, and reform-minded members of the mass upper middle class. It's also pretty plausible that this Anglo-Latino working class will be more tightly focused on the bread-and-butter issues that Hillary Clinton has emphasized, and less drawn to the somewhat vaguer causes of reinvigorating democracy and expiating this nation's Original Sin that have attracted voters to Obama.
And they may be less put-off by her combative style of politics as well. A decade ago, Michael Lind argued that a politics of "the beige and the black" would likely be sharper-edged than the politics of black and white. Lind suggested that the descendants of Latino and Asian immigrants will be less inclined to make magnanimous concessions to other groups, as they will see themselves as having perfectly legitimate grievances of their own. Cleavages over racial preferences, over cities vs. suburbs, the private sector vs. the public sector will take on a new significance. Though this is at first glance a less attractive vision than Obama's one-nation liberalism, it certainly runs with the grain of American history.
So do Democrats want to be on the side of the Anglo-Latino working class or an expanded version of the McGovern coalition? It's not obvious which path will prove most fruitful.
TransformerMark Schmitt says that Obama's community organizing and "democracy-minded reform movement" have permanently changed the party. |
Class warriorsRobert Borosage says that the Democrats' return to populist language in this election must be accompanied by real reform. |
Missing the coreDylan Loewe thinks Clinton is done because "no Democrat has won the White House without the loyal support of the African American community." |
Brand ClintonRuben Navarrette explains why Clinton has the advantage with Latino voters: "Latinos are famously brand loyal." |
(27)
Everyone is talking about his inability to convince the white, rural working class. No one is talking about her inability to convince more educated, affluent voters.
Count me in the column that is 100% behind Obama, but will vote McCain in the fall if Clinton is the nominee. I don't see a difference on foreign policy, which is important to me. And I'm not a low income, low information voter, so frankly I don't care about universal health care (nor do I think Clinton could achieve it given her demeanor and tactics).
Something that would really help in any election would be to have the ability to mark first, second, third choice or none of the above. Then we would not have arguments over whether a vote for one liberal over another liberal is tantamount to a vote for the conservative by virtue of splitting the liberal vote. We get some of this sense when national polls ask if the election was between McCain and Obama or McCain and Clinton, how would you vote? We don't get this kind of information in the only poll that actually counts.
Which voter group, (1) under-educated workers, many of whom are unemployed or underemployed, and unskilled Latino immigrants and second generation or (2) college grads, professional, and doing well, would you want the population to have more of? While the former (1) goes for Clinton, Obama is favored by the latter (2).
But, without an aspirational African American candidate in the race, wouldn't a great number of working class African Americans most naturally align with the Anglo-Latino coalition?
It seems to me that this "expanded McGovern coalition" is only possible because of Obama's unique biography. It has made it possible for him to be an aspirational candidate for African Americans without, like other, more economically populist candidates who enjoyed strong African American support, such as Jesse Jackson, frightening elite white voters.
As such, Obama support doesn't represent a coalition or movement so much as an ahistorical, likely unrepeatable, political moment.
I don't know if this is the point Al is raising above, but as a younger progressive, I'd rather have the Republicans win than have the Democrats win by catering to the wishes of group (1).
TH --
If you aren't interested in the economic realities facing the working class -- white, African American and others -- and you'd prefer a Republican to a moderate Democrat, then you aren't a "progressive."
Let me put this another way; does anyone doubt that if Daschle or Kerry had challenged Clinton, rather than Obama, that the African American vote wouldn't be going to Clinton?
Esmense --
My issues are more non-economic, foreign policy being particularly important (and an area where Clinton shows no difference from McCain). Environmental and social issues are also important, and these generally outside of the traditional Democratic "check the box" categories (abortion, civil unions, etc). I don't see Clinton being any more creative or reformist on the fronts I'm focused on than McCain. The pandering to the Rust Belt voter is actually the thing I like least about Democratic politics, so I'm not going to choose her over him no those grounds. You can call my position whatever you wish.
by catering to the under educated, underemployed and refuse to be informed, Clinton is following the tried and true methods of exploiting those with the most to gain from truth in advertising politics. These are the same demographics who have spent the better part of the last 30 years being taken advantage of by Republicans and Republican lite Clintonistas. It is time for an America that aspires to appeal to it's higher inclinations.
esmense, The black vote may or may not have gone to Clinton, but it would would have been by the vurtue of her husband not by any specific attempt on her part to garner it. Note her 70% support among the black community before the primary season began
9.2% edge for Hilldog.
she didn't get the double digit win.
TC Howell --
Whether they would vote for her on the basis of her husband's administration or not doesn't change, but in fact bolsters, my point; that, absent Obama, many African Americans, most likely a majority, would naturally align with other working class and minority voters.
Reihan Salam --
I just re-read your article and had to laugh. Look at the arguments being made here by Obama supporters -- do any of these posters sound as if they are interested in "reinvigorating democracy" to you?
Sounds like a lot of whining by a self-proclaimed "meritocracy" against democracy to me.
Hi Daily Dish, Where have you been? Clinton now has more college voters than Obama. And how close is she to taking the lead in the popular vote, when you count all votes cast (incl. Florida, Michigan)? I do not know the exact answer but am certain she is either very close to overtaking Obama, or already has.
Show me one valid statistic to show that Clinton has more college-educated voters than Obama. And... count Michigan? I didn't think the validity of an "election" with only one name on the ballot was even up for discussion.
By the way, Obama still has a lead of about 500,000 in the popular vote by the only measure that counts, under the rules established by the Democratic party. And his lead will grow on May 6th.
Anglo-Latins? I doubt it, because the inherently reactionary white working class will reject the "foreigners." They resemble the European working class that marched off to the First World War, stirred by nationalism, to kill each other. Let's face it -- there are times when "the people" fail, and this is an example.
Many of these whites, based on nothing but their own prejudice, believe that Hispanics are somehow responsible for their job losses. They routinely vote for Republicans like Bush, who defend the incompetent and crooked business types who exploit them. The world is passing these uneducated and education-resistant types by, and good riddance on their way to marginality. Their children will reject their racism and their limited horizons, their clinging, Pat Buchannan-like, to 1957.
Why is the media is always talking about Clinton getting the white vote. They said she hot 60% of the white vote to Obama's 40% He got 92% of the black vote to her 8%..!!! They keep asking can white America vote for a black, How come they don't ask if Black America will vote for a white if there id a black in the race? The double standard never ends.
Clinton WAS getting a significant black vote until Bill issued his race-baiting remarks, in a cynical and successful move to polarize the races. Once they could point to the black vote for Obama, they could heat up vulnerable whites and give them a license to vote their race. Hillary should never hold any office in the nation, ever, again. People in NY need to organize to see if she can be recalled.
The first primary with a significant black electorate was SC. Obama began his race baiting campaign before SC to depress Clinton support among African Americans in the state. The strategy did what it was intended to in the short term, arguably (I think he would have done just as well appealing to the aspirations of the African American community rather than appealing, sadly, to paranoia about the motives of white politicians). In the long run I think it harmed him because it destroyed the notion that he was a "unity" candidate or that his campaign was about "transcending" race. We can't know for sure, but if he hadn't been so cute with the racial politics, I think he might have put the nomination away by now.
There was simply no reason for the Clintons to use a racial strategy in a state where the majority of voters were African American, like South Carolina. None.
The benefit for injecting race into the campaign (for the purpose of undermining any African American vote for Clinton) was entirely on the Obama side.
Of course, for a lot of self-satisfied whites, Obama's strategy also played to their class prejudices. But in the end, doing so has made him look like the candidate of the elites, who has no understanding of or respect for Americans outside his own sheltered class.
Wistful thinking, Reihan.
The popularity of Lou Dobbs and of immigrant (read: Mexican/Hispanic) bashing among the Republican base indicates that any brown-white coalition has a looooooooooooooong way to go before becoming acceptable to the white working class.
Brown and black have problems, but neither instinctively and viscerally rejects the other on a broad basis the way that white rejects brown.
"Which voter group, (1) under-educated workers, many of whom are unemployed or underemployed, and unskilled Latino immigrants and second generation or (2) college grads, professional, and doing well, would you want the population to have more of? While the former (1) goes for Clinton, Obama is favored by the latter (2)."
"I don't know if this is the point Al is raising above, but as a younger progressive, I'd rather have the Republicans win than have the Democrats win by catering to the wishes of group (1)."
"The pandering to the Rust Belt voter is actually the thing I like least about Democratic politics, so I'm not going to choose her over him no those grounds. You can call my position whatever you wish."
"Anglo-Latins? I doubt it, because the inherently reactionary white working class will reject the "foreigners." They resemble the European working class that marched off to the First World War, stirred by nationalism, to kill each other. Let's face it -- there are times when "the people" fail, and this is an example."
And you guys wonder why 2 out of the last 7 presidents have been Democrats (and one of those governed pretty much as a moderate Republican) and you've lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections.
Well, acutally, I guess you don't. You know perfectly well it's becuase eeeeevil Rethuglicans have exploited the stupidity of the bitter, God and gun clinging morons in the heartland, people-and you use the term loosely-who are just too stupid to see thier own best interests and appreciate how you members of the best and brightest will take care of them. Because God knows the only real issues are economic (Marx demonstrated that pretty conclusively, didn't he?).
And, of course, the thought that social issues may actually matter to thoughtful people and that those drooling, mouth-breathing morons may actually recognize that your policies are the same ones that led to the disasters of the 1970s would make your tiny heads explode.
Yes, Democrats may have a hard time of bringing together Latinos and blacks, but the GOP has no chance on the Latino vote after last summer hateful, racist, and Nazi-like rhetoric on immigration. The GOP once and for all opted to be the white-anglo-saxon-protestant party in a country where the whites are decreasing in numbers by the day. And that's a losing stand.
Fred: re: those mouth-breathing morons.
A major reason that the Europeans finally have rejected military solutions and embraced diplomacy, being largely immune to hype-threats such as "Islamofascism" as a reason to send their troops off on counterproductive wars like Iraq, is that they experienced the dreadful damage and casualties of two world wars. Their mouth-breathing morons learned something from the near-destruction of their society.
As an American, I dread the thought that the only way our own flag-pinhead "thinkers" will learn anything is via the continued expansion of our self-defeating MidEast policy. When oil hits $500 a barrel, thousands here are jobless and crushed by inflation, a couple of US carriers are sunk in the Gulf, when thousands of American soldiers are slaughtered in a war with Iran (you think you can limit that to air strikes?) and their sons and daughters come back mangled and mind-altered, that will no doubt teach them something.
I just hope the rest of us have the ability to out-vote them to head off these lessons.
Good Lord, Denis. Where to start?
Europe has rejected military solutions because they've had us to defend them for nearly 3/4 of a century. They get to save (or rather buy a huge welfare state with) the money that we spend to protect them and have the luxury of tsk tksing us for doing what we have to do to protect them as well as ourselves.
And only a loony leftist could possibly desire the destruction of large parts of the population of his country just to teach a lesson to people he considers intellectually inferior. The moral (as well as regular) idiocy of that position is staggering.
Look, the fact is there will always be people who are willing to resort to force to get what they want. If you're not willing to use force to stop them, they'll take it from you. The military option will be necessary periodically as long as human beings are human beings. I might take this opportunity to mention that all the left's attempts to change human nature so far have, to put it mildy, met with less than success and destroyed about a hundred million people in the process of failing.
As someone posted above, the Lou Dobbs/ Tancredo Nazi-like bashing of Latinos has closed the door for the GOP, even for McCain, to the Latino vote come November. I have no doubt that Latinos will vote for Obama come election time and will help him become president.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
The focus on Advertising Dollars:
Why has Obama has spent more on advertising and still not sealed the deal?
To properly compare advertising spend, why not look at how much money has been spent since 1991 on promoting the Clinton brand in the media?
As any marketer knows, you need to spend more to compete with an established brand whether a dish soap, a fast food chain or a presidential dynasty.
Posted by S. Doyle | April 23, 2008 12:36 PM