A Nit

Not the biggest deal but I hate silly stupid stuff whether its the Media or the blogs. In this case it is a twofer. Both the normally solid NYTimes reporter John Harwood and MYDD blogger Todd Beeton forward the idea that Barack Obama is outperforming Bill Clinton among white voters. Harwood writes:

In last week's New York Times/CBS News poll, Mr. Obama drew 44 percent support among whites -- a higher proportion than Bill Clinton captured in his general election victories.

More . . .

Beeton further cites the unreliable Q pollster Peter Brown who says "Sen. Obama appears headed for the best showing of any Democratic candidate among white voters in a generation, going back at least to Jimmy Carter in 1976 and perhaps even to Lyndon Johnson in 1964 . . " This is, in a word, ridiculous. Let's assume for the sake of argument, the high end Times poll (the one that had Obama winning by 13) is correct and Obama gets 44% of the white vote - it still will not compare to Bill Clinton's 1996 performance since Clinton ran only 3 points behind Bob Dole among white voters (Perot took 9% of the white vote.) Clinton won Georgia, Arkansas and Louisiana (Obama will win none of these.) Look, Obama has run a great general election campaign (watching him talk about his grandmother was especially moving just now) - we do not need to hype his work with silly nonsense. Obama is helping to create a new Democratic majority, winning younger white voters as well as Latinos and African Americans in record numbers. No need to misstate facts to praise him.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Shocking Outcome of the Bahlul Trial | Obama's Grandmother Died >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTW: just to show (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    how high a mountain Obama has to climb in Georgia: Bill Clinton lost the state in 1996, even though he had won it in 1992, had overwhelming support from African Americans, and was from the south.

    Note (none / 0) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:41:11 PM EST
    how high a mountain Obama has to climb in Georgia: Bill Clinton lost the state in 1996, even though he had won it in 1992, had overwhelming support from African Americans, and was from the south.

    And Ross Perot took more than 13% of the votes in Georgia in 1992 (where BC defeated GHWB 43.5% to 42.9%). Given the way Georgia voted in 1996, 2000, and 2004, it may not be wrong to infer that Perot took more votes in Georgia from GHWB than BC.

    3 way elections are not the same as 2 way elections, dynamics are completely different.

    In Louisiana, Perot took more than 11% of votes
    (BC beat GWHB 45.6% to 41%)

    Arkansas was Bill Clinton's home state.

    The south has always been difficult political terrain for Democrats at the Presidential level (yes, even when BC was the candidate).


    2 points (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    The first obvious one, Clinton got 43% of the white vote to Dole's 46%. Even if Dole got 2/3 of Perot's white vote - Clinton's total STILL would go up to 46%.

    It so happens we have exit polls and know that the Perot vote would have split evenly between Clinton and Dole. (Clinton would have won the MAJORITY of Perot's vote in 1992.)

    Second, exit polls show that Clinton only benefitted from Perot's presence in one state in one election, 1996 in Montana.

    Yes, I have heard your story before. I am heartily sick of it personally.


    IN 1992, Clinton (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:43:28 PM EST
    would have won all the states he win in a two way race except for Georgia, Montana, and Colorado. I think the exit poll bears this out.

    Georgia is very much a special case.


    Just Montana in 1996 (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:49:15 PM EST
    according to exit polling.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:53:16 PM EST
    In any case, Republican protestations to the contrary, Perot's presence on the ballot did not change the outcome of either election.

    Seems Dems protest it more (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    these days.

    The blogger boyz want to really (none / 0) (#63)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    put that nail in the Clinton coffin. they and perhaps Obama himself,  want to win bigger than Clinton just to show everyone who is really boss.  But the real test comes in January when we see if Obama has the same skills Bill did in skirting around the GOP.  Of course, with the bigger Democratic wins expected in the senate and house, he may be able to coast there as in Illinois.

    So? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by neoliberal on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:16:48 PM EST
    "Clinton won Georgia, Arkansas and Louisiana (Obama will win none of these.)"

    And Obama will likely win Virginia, which has a higher percentage of whites than Georgia does. What does this prove?

    Teixeira explains (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:20:34 PM EST
    how Virginia is a "bookend of the new south"

    And what does that tell you? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:22:41 PM EST
    Think about it.

    All BTD said (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:28:49 PM EST
    was that the thrust of the article and post was simply incorrect.

    Given the state of political reporting in this country I'd say it's a nit worth picking.

    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:35:38 PM EST
    asking for the truth is "petty" now.

    I guess you (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:57:53 PM EST
    were looking to be banned too.

    Rilkefan, you are banned form my threads and your comments will be deleted from this one.

    Did you have a chance to read (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:02:02 PM EST
    anglachel on somerby today? quite awesome.

    The point is valid (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:06:38 PM EST
    but it's pretty amazing for Obama to even be in the same ballpark on this metric as Bill Clinton, who could have been grown in a lab to be the perfect Democratic candidate in terms of white-voter appeal.

    You seem to be arguing that these results (knock on wood) demonstrate that the Democratic Party can stop chasing after the white working-class whale, because the new coalition is sufficient to form a clear majority.  I would agree with that.

    But the same facts also suggest that a solid result among white voters is far from unattainable, provided we try for it.  We're simply not as racially polarized as a country as we were when I was growing up during the Reagan years, when every issue - crime, welfare, etc. - had a definite racial subtext.  Even this "socialism" stuff doesn't play into a racial issue as decisively as it might have.

    It's really nice to see that racial polarization of the type I wrote about here appears to be losing its salience in America.  Obama has been able to put together the Rainbow Coalition without frightening white voters en masse.  I like that.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#84)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:28:18 AM EST
    I would also say that Obama's political success represents the best of America's racial assimilation progression.  He represents what many of us hope for in our nations capital, and his skin color is simply an added benefit toward future racial harmony.  

    Silly comparison (none / 0) (#1)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:05:48 PM EST
    Clinton won Georgia, Arkansas and Louisiana (Obama will win none of these.)

    Hardly a fair comparison since Clinton-Gore had two southerners on the ticket, not to mention that Arkansas is Bill Clinton's home state.

    Clinton's wins were very impressive, no doubt, but there's a bit of a difference between two southerners and an African American candidate.  Obama's campaign stands on its own without any need to compare it with Clinton's.

    BTD is reacting to a comparison to Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:09:08 PM EST
    I understand and agree with that (none / 0) (#6)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:14:13 PM EST
    I was merely responding to the silly point that Clinton won Georgia, Arkansas and Louisiana, but Obama will win none of these.

    One point to make (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    is that if white southerners voted like white northerners, Obama would easily win all of them.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#10)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    Something to take into account (none / 0) (#80)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:56:38 AM EST
    at least in Florida, is that a lot of the "white southerners" voting are really "white northerners" only in the south by virtue of retirement.

    Silly point? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:20:49 PM EST
    Well now you are revealing your ignorance.

    Clinton was successful in winning enough white Southerners to win those states (and Tennessee.) To say that it is silly because Obama is black is just idiotic. Beeton in particular says that concerns about Obama's performance among white voters was ridiculous because "look he does better than Clinton."

    Do you think Obama would run better among white if he was not African American? do you REALLY think that was irrelevant to the discussion of Obama's electability? Are you really that stupid?\

    I should have stuck to my not responding to you policy. I am going back to it now.


    I think Al Gore and John Kerry demonstrate (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    that you don't have to be black to perform very poorly with white southerners. You just have to be a Democrat. Almost no Democrat, not even good ol' boy Jim Marshall, is immune.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's performance was remarkable.

    Remember he won Southern states getting "only" 88% of the A-A vote.

    Obama will win Virginia because he will get 95% of the A-A vote and turn it out in record numbers. He will do at least as well as Kerry with white voters but this victory will be won with the emerging Democratic majority, A-A increased turnout and larger margins among Latinos.


    There is, I think, a 50/50 chance (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:39:46 PM EST
    that he'll win even North Carolina with just 36% of the white vote. That would be pretty remarkable.

    Of course, if he could get even 30% of the white vote in states like Mississippi, Georgia, or Louisiana, we'd be looking at a very different map, indeed. From that perspective, it's not hard to understand why Schaller says what he does about the south.


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:56:33 PM EST
    In essence, Obama has taken an approach some of us advocated - look West and to the border states. I do not know what happened in Tennessee, but Dems have made gains in all the border states and out West.

    In short, Bill Clinton was sort of sui generis. Greatest pol of his generation no question.


    The writing was on the wall for TN (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:59:15 PM EST
    in 2000, when it couldn't even bring itself to elect it's favorite son.

    If I had an hour with Bill Clinton, I'd probably spend at least half of it picking his brain about the politics of the south. I am sure he has forgotten more than I will ever know.


    Gore wasn't a favorite son here. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:15:18 PM EST
    They resented his "Washington upbringing". He just used Tennessee as a place to run from according to many people I know.

    I guess they expected his dad to leave him here while he served in Washington. The Gore love/hate here is truly strange. Many were surprised he actually came here to live. They honestly see him as an elitist.

    Beats me andgarden. They like Bill better than Al. Maybe because Bill can come across as a good ole boy and Al couldn't. I love him, though.


    "They'll vote for him in Washington D.C. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:25:47 PM EST
    but not Tennessee." Right?



    Yeah. We went from Sasser and Gore in (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:33:52 PM EST
    the Senate to Thompson and Frist. That's unreal. Like BTD said, I don't know what happened to Tennessee.

    I just want to move sometimes. Then, this morning on my drive to work through the foothills, fall had finally arrived. It was beautiful. I guess I stay for the scenery!

    It's going to look bad tomorrow when we come out in Idaho territory.


    Yeah, it's hard (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:45:11 PM EST
    Think of it this way, though: you're going to beat Utah and Oklahoma!

    Being from... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Thanin on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:47:52 PM EST
    and currently living in Oklahoma, I want to resent that, but I cant.

    Ugh, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:51:36 PM EST
    Well, you'll always have Carl Albert.

    Ignorance, idiotic, stupid (none / 0) (#16)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    Don't put words in my mouth.  You more than misunderstand.

    Please remove yourself (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
    from my threads for the time being.

    Gladly; please remove your insults (none / 0) (#30)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:43:54 PM EST
    You are banned from my threads. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:53:16 PM EST
    BTW (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:58:38 PM EST
    Should I remove yours? Nah. Let's leave them up.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#45)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:13:15 PM EST
    Calling your point about Obama not winning Arkansas, etc, silly was not intended as a personal insult.

    Nice for you (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:21:15 PM EST
    your insult can be unintended and acceptable - my response to them are out of line. I don't play that sh*t.

    You want to play rough, I can deal with that. As I demonstrate and have for years.

    Either play nice or don't whine when it comes back at you. One or the other. That's the way I play.


    Whine? (none / 0) (#50)
    by robrecht on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:26:03 PM EST
    I do think calling people ignorant, idiotic, and  stupid is out of line as is falsely attributing such positions to them.  Saying so is not whining, just trying to observe a level of decency in discourse.

    I apologize for calling your point silly and would welcome any defense of your point.


    No thanks (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:30:53 PM EST
    I'm done.

    I did not make the comparison (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:09:15 PM EST
    I am questioning why it is being made. And I am questioning the misleading nature of the claims.

    Well, the point (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:14:10 PM EST
    is to try and dig into Clinton still today.  They cannot help themselves. "See!? Obama is even liked better by whites than even Bill was!" They're just trying to dirty up Bill's name some more.  

    I actually think Beeton was a Clinton Supporter (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lil on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    That is your view (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:27:52 PM EST
    Not mine.

    What makes any Obama comparison silly (2.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:29:55 PM EST
    is a comparison to anyone at all. How can anyone even attempt a comparison in an election where Bart Simpson could have beat the GOP candidate?

    The comparison I'd like to see, and it can't really happen but we know it is the truth, is how many votes did Obama get because Obama was Obama...versus how many votes did Obama get because he was running against the worst GOP candidate of modern times...piggybacked with with votes he gets because he isn't George Bush.

    Obama isn't winning anything here. He is the classic example of the least worst choice. Seasoned political observers know that.


    that is absurd (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:34:13 PM EST
    Obama built a different nontraditional winning coalition - one only he could have built.

    It is true that other Dems, Hillary Clinton especially, could have won as well but this map is an Obama creation and it creates some real opportunities for Dems going forward.


    Absurd? I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:11:44 PM EST
    So you are saying that McCain being the worst GOP candidate in modern times is not true and even if true would have nothing to do with Obama's numbers? And that George Bush didn't have anything to do with Obama's numbers when you, among many, said Obama should run against Bush and that Obama show call McCain Bush II?

    Seems to me you are now arguing against your own past arguments. Yes?

    As for a new "nontraditional winning coalition", what is non-traditional about Obama's numbers demographically that other Democrats have not won before? Blacks, Hispanics, White Democrats and a fair number of White Independents is hardly nontraditional. I don't see where the nontraditional comes in.

    Yes there are record numbers of voters but record numbers occurred in the Democratic Primary in which Clinton received half the votes so the record numbers neither belonged to her or Obama. They were a product of losing in 2004 and people were not going to let it happen again. Had it not been for internal party politics which 'selected' Obama Clinton would be pulling the same numbers in the general today.

    I don't see the nontraditional. Even in your diary you say Obama is not winning a greater percentage of Whites that other Democrats in the past so that is not an Obama record setter and neither is the Black or Hispanic vote. Again the larger projected voter population is a product of 2004 IMO.

    The demographics are very traditional - the record number of projected voters is a product of Bush and 2006.


    It was a perfect storm for Obama... (3.66 / 3) (#24)
    by Thanin on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    Everything went his way.  Kind of makes me chuckle how much that fact upsets some people.

    Pointing out the truth (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:15:26 PM EST
    is not being upset, it is just pointing out the truth. And it is the truth which is scary because we agree on something...

    but like a child you still down rate me. Back at ya.


    If down ratings... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Thanin on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:17:39 PM EST
    hurt your feeling so much you might want to hide them.

    To the adults here (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Pepe on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    and the more mature younger people you continue to show what a child you are. Instead of debating an opinion you consistently go against the rules like a child and do drive-by troll ratings like a child who throws eggs and runs because he isn't man enough to say anything or stick around to face the consequences of throwing eggs. Childish behavior and you are such a child you don't even recognize that you act like a child.

    FYI you don't hurt my feelings. I'm way above you to let a child hurt my feelings, after all you are just a child. I just like to highlight your childish behavior. I rather doubt anyone here considers you someone who really has  'something to say'. Many people here don't agree with each other always, but agree or disagree for the most part others have 'something to say'. You don't. the only thing you have is a troll button. WOW!


    You know... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Thanin on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:42:46 PM EST
    when you have to rant about how your feelings arent hurt, it usually betrays the truth.

    By the way, rating a 1 is troll, used for troll posts.  2-5 are disagreement/agreement and not against any rules to use.  And if you honestly think differently, why would we even have a rating system that goes from 1 to 5 if this isnt the case?


    You make a petty assumption (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    Where do I discuss anyone's motivations?

    What the eff is wrong with you people?

    I said what? (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:02:52 PM EST
    You have a quote for where I said that?

    But now I see where you are coming from:

    "this sounds like another thread slapped together just so we can all revel in the greatness that was Bill Clinton. "

    A Clinton hater I see. What's next? Some Perot Effect Mythology? It amazes me that so many of you Obama Bots can;t stand Bill Clinton when Obama is in fact the Second Coming of Bill Clinton.

    Oh Cults of Personality are things to behold.


    No! No! and No! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:23:27 PM EST
    We "Obama Bots" recognize Bill Clinton's greatness. The Democrats needed him in the 1990s, just as they need Obama now to spearhead the country towards more progressive policies. I will happily acknowledge that BC created the political space that future Democrats can build on. Nowadays, in general, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans on matters related to the economy. That would not have been possible had BC not been President.

    Good to hear (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 07:28:24 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:02:52 PM EST
    Hail Obama!!!

    I'll tell you what grates me - idiots who do not care what is true or not. Not talking about you of course.


    You are banned (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:23:13 AM EST
    from my threads.

    Jeralyn will love you. Comment in her threads.


    Fascinating that (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:06:30 PM EST
    you assert Bill was sulking.  And yet you claim to admire/respect him?  I don't think so.  My read is that Barack was sulking by not accepting his offer to campaign for and with him until the last possible minute.

    Perhaps we can all move on when the CDS sufferers admit they need help and get their heads shrunk.


    Nope (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    You've got it wrong.  Obama did not want him campaigning for him, didn't so much as call him until months after the primaries, etc.  CDS.

    ROFL (none / 0) (#79)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:49:01 AM EST
    Obviously you dont know BTD!

    a vote... (none / 0) (#28)
    by white n az on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    like a poll is a snapshot in time and it's absurd to equate the votes garnered by Obama this cycle versus WJC 12 or 16 years ago because one would have to wonder whether HRC would have done even better than Obama did this cycle.

    Of course, we can never know these things and the Republican's are in full self-destruct mode at this point anyway. I am intrigued by Obama's stated intentions not to politicize the remainders and as he eloquently stated to Rachel Maddow, prefer the characterization that it's not that Republican's are inherently wrong, but rather that their party was kidnapped by idealogues with bad ideas.

    While my preference might be kick the Republican's while they are down, I'm willing to see how well Obama's strategy works because it's clear that this country needs a miracle.

    In the end though, while I admire the gymnastic efforts posited that it is somehow meaningful to analyse the white vote percentages by various dems, in the end, it really means nothing as we have much larger fish to fry.

    Don't give up on Georgia yet (none / 0) (#31)
    by atlmom on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM EST
    I am mildly optimistic that my state could actually pull through with amazing turnout.

    Is it fair to say. . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:12:51 PM EST
    that Obama is running no worse than other recent Democratic candidates (Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and maybe Dukakis in aggregate)?

    If so, what does that mean?  That there's little if any race based voting going on among white voters because Obama is doing as well as recent white candidates?  Or that, given the year and the national situation, he should be running well ahead of recent candidates, and therefore there is a race based negative effect on his vote totals?

    Silly to aggregate Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:16:50 PM EST
    for the reasons I state in the post.

    No dem has run within 10. Clinton ran within 3.

    I think Obama will do as well as Kerry and probably a bit better. but his performance among white folk is not why he will win - it is the NEW democratic majority. I have written a number of posts on the subject.

    This is a FEATURE NOT a bug, Obamabots. This is a more progressive voter coalition. Funny thing, Obama is to the right of his voter coalition.


    What is your prediction. . . (none / 0) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    for the McCain / Obama numbers among white voters nationally?

    57-42 (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:21:33 PM EST
    Many of them don't give a hoot that he is (none / 0) (#68)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    to the right of their positions. (I'm not so sure all of them are all that progressive on some issues.) He is Obama, BTD, and that's plenty good enough for them.

    I hope he ignores them and governs to the true liberals but I have zero expectations of that. He'll have a "mandate" to do so, but I don't think he wants to play politics to get it done. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.


    Just out of curiosity... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Thanin on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    which group bothers you more, Obamabots or PUMAs?

    Funny how we think (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:45:04 PM EST
    of the electoral map sometimes as some kind of time-honored arrangement.  Bill won WV in 92 too, which is now firmly in McCain's camp.

    This thread reminds me of the one about the Yglesias post that BTD put up a few days ago.  You know,

    Of course to some extent any Democratic Party electoral coalition represents a rebuke to that way of thinking. But someone like a Bill Clinton represented a very self-conscious effort to portray himself as a member of the "real" America. Obama, by contrast, is a multi-racial guy from a big city who has no real choice but to stand his ground and say, no, the America that I live in is the real America.


    But for those written out of the "real" America for reasons of race rather than taste in salad greens, that kind of cultural and political marginalization is much more threatening, and the idea of relaxing it is incredibly appealing.

    To me Yglesias as quoted here is no different than Frank Rich.  If you think this is the story, then I guess that's okay.  But I don't see how it is anything more than what you want to believe is happening.  It is grounded in pretty much nothing, at least when it's written up this way.  Non-whites in the coalition are romanticized and whites in the coalition evolve from their "Real American" ancestors by selecting better salad greens.  Bill Clinton is racist for being a "real" American.  Lower middle class and working class whites are impediments.  Obama never talks about Kansas or amber waves of grain.

    This is sort of the opposite of what I think Obama intends to do - based on his poorly worded "bittergate" comments, he does think about connecting to poorer, forgotten white America.  He sees room for expansion there as far as his coalition goes.  And so he should.

    But there is some serious hot air coming from pundits who want to punish white people in America indiscriminately.  Politically, it's stupid, and by dismissing so many people all in one bloc, it makes it difficult for us to learn anything for the next time around, when hopefully Obama does even better than his current great numbers.  The scorn for working class whites coming out of some pundits is really sickening.