THE STUMP NOVEMBER 22, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Earlier this month, after Ohio voters roundly rejected Gov. John Kasich's attempt to eviscerate public employee unions, I mused on the result's implications for the Obama re-election campaign. Despite signalling their intent to hang onto the 2008 pickups of Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado -- home of disproportionate numbers of minority and young voters and college-educated professionals -- would the Obama team actually be better off focusing on holding onto blue-collar voters in the Rust Belt, and Ohio in particular?
In the weeks since, a healthy debate has sprung up on this front. On the one hand are the likes of Bill Galston, arguing that the Democrats would be better off taking the more traditional route to an electoral map majority, by focusing on Ohio and the broad middle of the electorate it represents, and not placing undue hopes in turning out outsized numbers of young or minority voters in the newly en-purpled states. On the other hand, are the likes of Ruy Teixeira, who argue that Obama is justified in placing hope in young and minority voters because the growth of those groups is a demographic fact. This does not, however, lead Teixeira to argue that Obama should zero in on Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina at the expense of Ohio; rather, Teixeira argues that Ohio versus Virginia is a false choice, and that a forthright, populist-tinged message will appeal to suburban independents in Raleigh, Norfolk or Denver about as much as it will appeal to the Ohio working class.
Teixeira expands on his case in a new 68-page paper co-authored by John Halpin of the Center for American Progress. If you're not up for the full paper, I recommend Mike Tomasky's very good distillation of it. Meanwhile, there's a new clue today to how the Obama team is actually thinking about this, in the form of recent remarks by campaign manager Jim Messina. Messina tells ABC News that, on the one hand, the campaign is very heartened by the Ohio outcome and the backlash underway in Wisconsin against Gov. Scott Walker, and is taking from that the Midwest could be stronger territory for the Democrats than previously thought. But, appearing to follow Teixeira, Messina argues that a Rust Belt and purple-state focus are not mutually exclusive, going so far as to say that the campaign was going to make a play for Arizona this time around.
That is the upbeat case for Obama's refusing to choose between working class white voters and an upscale/minority coalition. The less upbeat version of the case can be stated in one word: Pennsylvania. The Keystone state has plenty of both types of voters and right now it's not looking so good for Obama. A new PPP survey has him tied with Romney in the state, despite having won it easily in 2008. (Notably, his 10-point win in the state came despite a particularly poor showing among the state's working class whites -- whereas non-college educated white voters actually voted for him in higher numbers in Michigan and Iowa than did college-educated whites in those states, Obama got wiped out among non-college educated whites in Pennsylvania.) Obama pretty much has to win Pennsylvania, and it seems clear that the way to do so is to follow the advice of Teixeira -- drive up turnout as much as possible among the young voters, minorities and highly educated types in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh while doing everything possible to hold his own among the working class in the rest of the state. Either/or won't suffice.
A final thought: another reason for avoiding a stark apposition of strategies is to spare the sort of confused punditry found in last week's Economist. Under the headline "The elusive progressive majority," the magazine's Lexington column takes Galston's side in arguing for a more conventional, Ohio-centric approach. But it confuses the matter by linking Obama's more populist turn of late -- a turn the magazine deplores -- with the goal of pursuing a coalition of younger, minority and college-educated voters. In fact, it is just as plausible that Obama's more forceful tone is an attempt to regain standing among the working-class Ohioans who have turned against Kasich. Or, as Teixeira would argue, it's a tone that could apply across the board, beyond the facile divisions that political reporters (myself included) ought to be more careful about making.
8 comments
Whatever happened to the GOP plan to steal 8 or 10 electoral votes in Pennsylvania?
- stanmvp48
November 22, 2011 at 9:16pm
Arizona's paleo-fascist immigration law like Alabama's that led a German Mercedes exec. to be arrested there yesterday (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/mercedes_benz_executive_arrested_under_alabama_immigration_law.html) should def. put Arizona in play.
- brp1056
November 22, 2011 at 10:43pm
stgabnvp48: "Whatever happened to the GOP plan to steal 8 or 10 electoral votes in Pennsylvania?" It seems pretty dead. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/20111122_Corbett__Change_in_Pa__electoral_votes_going_nowhere.html
- dsimon
November 23, 2011 at 1:21am
I hope his "more forceful tone" comes from his finally recognizing that despite their "compromise" rhetoric, the Republicans have no intention to actually make any compromise agreements. In fact, when it looks like a compromise has finally been hammered out, they back away from it when Obama supports the compromise. So Obama, through pursuing compromise, has enabled the Republicans to stall needed legislation, and turn the debate away from Keynesian stimulus and toward destroying the Social Safety net. Finally he has realized this, is finally calling their behavior what it is, and finally trying to lay the responsibility for their intransigence where it belongs. It's about time.
- AllanL5
November 23, 2011 at 8:55am
"Or, as Teixeira would argue, it's a tone that could apply across the board, beyond the facile divisions that political reporters (myself included) ought to be more careful about making." That's right, the target should be middle class voters whatever their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual preference, or geographic location. And if it takes a populist message, even one with negative tones (see Kilgore), so be it. At no time, at least not in my lifetime, have those that comprise the middle class had such similar concerns, concerns not based on "facile divisions" but economic pressures. It would be a major error for Obama to continue the Democrats' historic pattern of running political campaigns based on "facile divisions".
- rayward
November 23, 2011 at 9:22am
It depends on what the "populist" message is. If it's about extending the payroll tax cuts or having an infrastructure bank--instead of actually tackling the housing problem, the distribution of profits, and the excesses of financial sorcerers--then I worry that any message calibrated to target multiple groups won't be very appealing. Obama, in my mind, still hasn't shown the ability to formulate visionary policies that match his rhetoric. If he's facing Romney, who has bolder ideas, then he's in serious trouble. In terms of geography, I'll say: Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, and North Carolina are all going to be tough sells for Obama, because they've all been especially hard-hit by the economy. Virginia is more insulated because of DC, and New Mexico has more minority voters. It'll probably come down to how Virginia votes. Not a good sign for Obama.
- polcereal
November 23, 2011 at 12:13pm
Polcereal, which "bolder ideas" of Romney's do you have in mind in re the issues you just described? On the housing problem, Romney wants to let banks foreclose on as much property as possible and then sell it to housing speculators who would rent out the foreclosed upon units -- which is not a crazy notion in and of itself, but in the short term would lead to more evictions, lower property taxes (hence more economic problems for cities and counties) and more economic dislocations for underwater borrowers. On the distribution of profits, I'm not aware of Romney having any views on why said distribution should be changed from what it is today. On the "excesses of financial sorcerors", his solution, like all other Republican candidates, is to repeal Dodd-Frank and not replace it with anything -- which means that the financial sorcerors can keep doing what they're doing and the public can again pick up the chips if the party crashes, as in September/October 2008. Frankly, it strikes me that Romney has a glass jaw in poll results like the one from Pennsylvania, and persuadable voters will see him as a defender of plutocracy unless he quickly pivots after securing the nomination to offer unconventional and moderately populist economic plans for the middle class and underwater homeowners.
- wildboy
November 23, 2011 at 1:47pm
OT, but per brp1056's link, I can attest that my Illinois driver's license has been sufficient ID for every interaction I've had with the German police over the years. So, Germany, land of the free. Alabama, land of the show me your papers?
- Nari224
November 23, 2011 at 2:10pm