The Wine Track

Ezra Klein writes:

Candidate Obama’s pledge to change Washington, echoing reform-minded predecessors like Gary Hart and Bill Bradley, won applause from affluent Democrats and independents in the primaries," writes John Harwood in today's New York Times. But, uh, huh? I know the initial line on Obama's candidacy was that he appealed to "wine-track" voters rather than "beer-track" voters, but that didn't show up in his results. Look at Iowa or Indiana or South Carolina or Arkansas.

Um, Ezra, you gotta be kidding me. Take Arkansas for instance:

Hillary Clinton won at higher margins amongst non-college educated and lower incomes. And it is important to not forget that Obama always performed well with the African-American vote.

In Indiana, Obama won college grad and post grads by 56-44, while losing non-college grads by 55-45.

In Iowa, Obama's best performance was again with the wine track voter (higher educated, more affluent.)

South Carolina, which Obama won by 28 points overall, defied these trends. But I think the reason was obvious - 55% of the South Carolina Dem primary electorate was African American and Obama won 80% of their vote.

Obama built a winning coalition in the primaries - it was made up of wine track voters and African Americans. He never won white working class voters, Latinos or women -- until the general election (where the white working class went for the GOP candidate, as they usually do.)

Ezra's post is dumb. Just using his 4 cherry picked states demolishes his argument. I do not even have to talk about Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, etc. He must have slept through the primaries.

Speaking for me only

< Najibullah Zazi's Father Indicted: Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice | Malarkey From The Senate On the Health Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Did he just get his wife... (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    ...or girlfriend pregnant and take out a huge mortgage? He was one of the goodens a few years ago.  Does have gambling debts?

    what are you talking about? (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    or rather - who?

    I think you are confusing him with Peter Orzag.


    Ezra Klein (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Salo on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    Hes like David Broder's mini me.

    The winning coaltion (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:11:43 PM EST
    Let's not leave out the key component of the winning coalition in the primaries: Dem Senators and party officials.

    It was the caucuses that (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 12:01:16 AM EST
    did the job.  If the Democrats go to straight secret balloting and get rid of their backroom deals, I might re-up.  But they want to give their "old dogs" like Kerry, Kennedy, Dsachle and the rest the ability to pick the winners.  They think they know better than the blue collar lunch pail Democrats. The elites were always sure of that. Those Democratic voters don't stick around too long if their leaders don't come through.

    It just leaves me speechless. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 06:03:57 PM EST
    Well, almost.

    Good gawd...have colleges dropped Phil 101 (includes basics of logic) from the curriculum?

    And BTW, what do you call a 'higher-educated, less affluent' track voter?  It's two-buck chuck or beer for us...unless you're buyin'...

    You mean it's still (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    "two-buck chuck"?  I would have thought it would be at least "three-buck chuck" by now.  ;-)

    You're right...actually it is (none / 0) (#11)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    three-buck...except in a few places holding thew line with retro specials!  Probably move to four pretty soon...:)

    Well said, intriguing observation Oldpro... (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    Throughout the '08 campaign we were given the distinct impression that a lot of Hillary supporters were so-called 'low-information' voters - which I always took to be code for poor, and implicitly non-college educated, voters.

    I've often wondered why nobody specifically looked at how the 'higher-educated, less affluent track' electorate was voting during the primaries.

    As BTD would say, speaking for me only - this here college-educated far-from-affluent person - I wuz supporting Hillary.


    Well this should give them some pause then (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    Young voters may ditch Dems over health care

    Guess it's not just "low information" voters...

    Here's something that should make David Axelrod nervous: there are probably more Yankees fans in Massachusetts than there are young people who voted in the Massachusetts Senate special election, which cost the Democrats their filibuster-proof supermajority. Just 15 percent of eligible voters under age 30 participated. The numbers were similarly dismal during two other Republican electoral victories from last fall. In the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, just 17 and 19 percent of potential young voters participated, respectively.

    This wasn't just a fluke trifecta of uninspiring elections. It is, rather, part of a nationwide trend toward apathy among Americans under 30. Harvard's Institute of Politics (IOP), which regularly polls young people on political issues, found last fall that just 24 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds said that they were "politically engaged or politically active," a 19-point drop from a year earlier. This could mean trouble down the road for a Democratic Party that may have begun taking the youth vote for granted. Young voters, after all, turned out in record numbers for the 2008 election, and if they hadn't, Obama might not be in the White House. But if Democrats don't pass health-care reform, youth turnout may plummet.

    A more critical question may be (none / 0) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    whether the health-in$urance reform fiasco translates into antipathy or apathy among African American voters.

    It stands to reason that if the administration expects young people to stay home, there will be an increased plea for African American support and turnout.


    It should have given them pause (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    when they were doing everything they could to get him elected over Hillary. No coattails and the youth are the easiest to turn off. Especially the first time voters and those that got active and invested for the first time. But, all they cared about was winning and they might have just bought into to that "I can united everyone just by being me!" crap.

    Well, yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 06:49:34 AM EST
    But you're speaking using logic and not with love.

    Why do you hate Obama so?  <snark>


    The Iowa primary shows just how (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by hairspray on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 11:53:42 PM EST
    lethal John Edwards was in respect to Hillary Clinton.  I am not sure where his votes would have gone had he not been in the race, but the fact he was already involved in an extramarital affair and continued on with the race tells me plenty about him.

    His vote would have grouped (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    around someone else. And lets not get into affairs.  ANY pol you care to mention has probably had a few.

    Even Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    BO? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    Right, him too. (none / 0) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    You missed the point. (none / 0) (#26)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    He entered the race at the same time as this affair had taken off.  Are you suggesting this is classic behavior?

    Perhaps because (none / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    he wasn't constantly being insulted by the O campaign? He might view things a tad differently if he were described as bitter and clinging  ;)

    Given what Obama did (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:10:48 PM EST
    I must say it's sad that the DNC didn't try runny an ivy League educated black politician before. You have to give Obama credit for building that coalition on a combination of gumption and analytical observation. Can he control this coalition in off year elections in congress? Some of the special elections suggest not.  

    It's going to be a demographer's bonanza studying what he's accomplished, and failed to accomplish.

    He doesn't demonize well: that (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by observed on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:17:43 PM EST
    really helps in off-year elections. The Bush team excelled in that area.

    More important (none / 0) (#12)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 11:17:10 PM EST
    he's made no attempt to feed that coalition.  He totally lost interest in them, it seems, once he was elected.

    After all, they have nowhere else to go, right?


    I think he's missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 11:29:38 PM EST
    if we have nowhere to go, why would we go out to vote? People stay home if they have no where to go/no reason to go anywhere. And by 2012, it may need to be a compelling reason . . . .

    the on-going exposure of ezra klien dumbitude (none / 0) (#8)
    by pluege on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 04:48:58 PM EST

    i'll feel bad about this later. (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 04:01:06 AM EST
    Take Arkansas for instance:


    ty, ty, i'll be here all weekk.

    ok, so basically what you're saying (and i don't necessarily disagree, i just want to clarify), is that us edumacated, "i had a wine-track built in my house, to keep those gallon boxes of cheap rose' on" voters were too "blinded by the light", from the aura surrounding candidate obama?

    oh, and his homeboysngirls too. meanwhile, those salt o' the earth workin' class, real murkins were not so easily swayed, until they kind of had to be, then they voted for mccain/palin?

    in my defense (and you can go back and check my posts on the subject), i wore uv blocking sunglasses, throughout the primaries, and a clothes clip on my nose, in nov. my lack of impressedness goes wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back, to at least the beginning of 2008. i didn't want to have to wait, in the line i knew would be forming.

    ok, i've thought about it. (none / 0) (#17)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 04:01:40 AM EST
    i don't feel bad about the beginning of my last post! :)