The New Republic

Hillary's banking on her strong support among white Catholic Democrats who attend church three times a month and were born on a Wednesday.  Also Hispanic doctors who drive domestic cars with vanity plates and blacks who have a diet consisting mostly of seafood.

- ratnerstar

February 25, 2008 at 9:28am

I think a pertinent avenue of inquiry might be revealed by asking voters of their regard for Mother Mary. That would profile an interesting intersecting constellation point for the groups you have mentioned.

- boxofrox

February 25, 2008 at 9:34am

My understanding of the hills of Ohio is that they are quite backwards. I knew someone in college who had epilepsy, and she said that the folks in her town thought she had been posessed by the devil.

- virginiacentrist

February 25, 2008 at 9:37am

If you can't post anything but trivial, condescending B/S why bother and waste the time?

- r-brown207

February 25, 2008 at 10:07am

Well I suspect the reason for Obama's uphill battle among most of those lower class white, Catholic, Rust Belt, pipe-fitting voters of Ohio might be simply because they don't quite trust a guy with a name they can't pronounce. So they get online and read far-right conservative websites or listen to their local radio station talking about how Obama is really a closet Muslim that intends to over throw the government single-handedly and confiscate all bibles. There is a certain level of racial/religious/cultural mistrust of the 'other' by the lower class across demographics. That isn't to say that Hillary is playing on that basest level of mistrust, but I assure you there are far right proxies that are. The other thing many of these people fear more is the change in American politics that is now apparent. It's no longer the domain of old white guys, but now you've got solid women and minority candidates that reflect the changing political & demographic spectrum in America (and it's about damn time too.)

I think if Barack has enough local support hitting the streets of small town Ohio then he has the chance to convince many people to consider him, but he's not going to win them all over.

- singlespeed

February 25, 2008 at 10:13am

Ohio's electorate is still 30% undecided. I can't see undecideds with Hillary 0-11 Feb. going with the old gal. If Obama wins by one vote, she is gone, and good riddance.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 10:38am

I think Noam is right. I grew up in Cincinnati and now live in Minneapolis. The attitudes regarding race are strikingly different. Part of the reason is obvious - distance for the South. Southern Ohio has seen a heavy influx from West Virginia and Kentucky over the last twenty years. And that region in general, including Southern Indiana, has a dominant white, lower-class sensibility that is mistrustful or downright hostile to progressive ideas. And the politics throughout Ohio are dispiriting: most of the elected officials of both parties are hacks, and everything seems to be done through cronyism. Limbaugh's ratings throughout Ohio are extremely high.

That said, my brother, a very conservative Republican who attends mass daily, is voting for Obama. He can't stand McCain or the Clintons. He's more anti -Establishment than pro-Obama. It's unfortunate that the black mayor of Cincinnati, Mallory, continues to ride the fence. His refusal to endorse is fairly typical of Ohio politics. My guess is that Obama will take Ohio by a very slim margin.

- fougasseu

February 25, 2008 at 10:58am

Someone told me once that African Americans that moved to (Wisconsin and) Minnesota back in the day were higher skilled workers seeking higher waged jobs and therefore intregrated more easily into the white working class, whereas African Americans who moved into other Midwestern cities were lower skilled workers.  I don't know if its true, but its an interesting theory.

- Andrew Davis

February 25, 2008 at 11:12am

"I think working-class whites in the upper Midwest are much more progressive on race than their Rust Belt counterparts."

Accrding to Noam Scheiber there is something wrong with people who don't vote for Obama.

I have a different explanation. When a sane person hear from Obama "We are the One we have been waiting for..." he or she thinks that Obama is full of himself.  

- jacobt1

February 25, 2008 at 11:14am

It's because Wisconsin and the upper Midwest have more German / Scandinavian / Lutheran immigrants, and historically those groups were very progressive, particularly on race. (Never mind that the "Wisconsin Synod" of Lutherans is a bunch of reactionary yahoos -- that's ironic, but they're just a tiny rump group.)

- JSmith125

February 25, 2008 at 11:39am

Not that endorsements matter, but Maryland's Governor O'Malley and Senator Mikulski were strongly pro-Clinton -- Sen. Cardin has been neutral, I believe-- while Virginia's Governor Kaine and DC's Mayor Fenty were both very pro-Obama.  It could be reverse causality, where the consituents preferences drive the elected officials stand, but I have to weigh in against simplistic demographic explanations.

- stgla

February 25, 2008 at 12:02pm

That's a good point JSmith. I was thinking something similar, but was too lazy to go verify it...

- Noam Scheiber

February 25, 2008 at 12:16pm

Obama didn't win white Democrats in Wisconsin. He "crushed" Hillary because the primary electorate was nearly 40% independents and Republicans, which is not at all the same thing.

Ohio is an open primary, too, so I'm not sure how it will go. But Obama has only won white Democrats in two state primaries: New Mexico and Illinois. It's very unlikely that he will win them in Ohio.

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 12:16pm

come on Jacob, stick to the thread. that line doesn't persuade anyone, in fact it pisses people off more to be called insane. And where does Noam imply anything is wrong with anybody? Insult is not persuasion.

One thing Noam has not addresses is why there are still so many undecideds. I am really curious as to why.

By the way, I answered your criticism that Obama's supporters never criticize him. Of course we do.

I know this is off thread but  I disagree with mandates in any case. The fact is is Obama is partly wrong for demanding it for children, Hillary is totally wrong for demanding it of everyone. So I am not defending Obama's position, just saying it is better than Hillary's. Did you read my post above (on the other thread) about how to solve the problem?

As to children, every child in america should be covered by schip, regardless of income level, just as education is a right for children, so should health care be.

And the solution for free rider adults is a medicaid tax to fund charity care, with those that have insurance getting a rebate at the end of the year.

So I have already criticized Obama's position (especially in another thread, where I listed all of his mistakes, the small employer loophole is another one) and then you accuse me of defending Obama's position no matter how wrong it is? You owe me an apology my man. And I posted that other information days ago.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 12:19pm

Most working-class non-ethnic whites in the major industrial centers of MI OH IN and IL are migrants from the south. Dee-troit has more country music followers than most southern cities.

- teplukhin2you

February 25, 2008 at 12:34pm

jmkerr makes a good point. Are these polls of likely Democratic voters? If Independents and Republicans come out to vote for Obama just to spite Hillary, then Hillary will be crushed there as well (maybe not as big, but any loss, even by one vote, will be crushing, ending her bid.

The Republican nomination now is over. Will Republicans use their chance to vote against her now or risk facing her in November. I gotta believe Obama will carry the majority of the Republican vote, maybe even winning more votes than window dressing McCain. (I know they will vote for him in November, but can they resist the urge to drive a stake in her heart?)

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 12:35pm

I don't think the Lutheran thing explains much. Plenty of scandinavians in northern Michigan, and plenty of progressives across MI and OH-- Oberlin's in Ohio, remember? Ann Arbor's pretty hard left, and Detroit and Cleveland are rock-solid liberal.

The difference is in the areas where manufacturing meets corn. That's where you get uneducated whites who migrated north since the 1930s rubbing elbows with uneducated blacks who migrated north during the same period or later. A perfect example is Benton Harbor MI, home to Whirlpool. They've had persistent and major racial tensions there as long as I can remember. Combine this with fertile territory for survivalists like "Mark from Michigan" and you have a very weird mix. Throw in redneck and industrial roughneck and well-educated knowledge workers and catholics and baptists and dutch reformed and lutheran progressives and arab christians and arab muslims and suburban jews and you get... Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, Madonna Ciccone, Eminem, Bob Seger, and Michael Jackson [Indiana].

If you can win over such a populace you can win anywhere.

- teplukhin2you

February 25, 2008 at 12:42pm

Blackton,

That's already happened in Virginia and WIsconsin. In Wisconsin, nearly 40% of the voters were independent/Republicans. In Virginia, it was about 25%. Obama is running neck and neck in Texas, but last I checked Hillary was up among Democrat voters by 5 or 6 points, which means that Republicans and independents are going to be a huge factor.

That's the basis of Obama's win of the white vote. Clinton won the white Democrat vote, as indeed she has won in every state primary except Illinois and New Mexico. Obama did narrowly win in Wisconsin, with a boost from the state's 5% black voters and same day registration of college students, but the blowout was provided by the independents and Republicans. Given that Hillary won white Democrats, she almost certainly won Democrats in all the educational and income categories that Obama "won" on the basis of  the independents and republicans.

You can read all the stats and analysis as to what the basis of Obama's victory is here:

www.theperfectworld.us/post.php

I wrote up stuff I've been posting onvarious comments blogs.

The Obama argument would be that the strong support of independents and Republicans will carry over into the general. But after Texas and Ohio, I believe Clinton will have the majority of the Democrat vote in non-caucus states (and possibly overall). Do the Dems want to give the nomination to a candidate who can't convince Democrats to vote for him?

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 12:59pm

jmkerr, in a word; yes.

I suppose what you are advocating is that in the future we close off all primaries and caucuses to Democrats only. But isn't the logic of opening them up is to get a candidate that will appeal more to the middle, to avoid a Mondale type politician?

And you are basing your statement that Hillary will have the majority of the Democrat vote on exit polling only. It is a secret ballot after all so she can't really base her argument on something as flawed as exit polling, can she?

If Democrats lose this time with Obama, then live and learn. In 4 years work to have a closed system.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 1:12pm

"jmkerr, in a word; yes."

That may be what you want, but you can't be goofy enough to think that'swhat the Dems want. It  may be what the Democrat leadership decides, but it is insanely risky. And certainly, it's exactly what the superdelegates were set up to overcome.

"But isn't the logic of opening them up is to get a candidate that will appeal more to the middle, to avoid a Mondale type politician?"

No.  

And I'm pretty sure I told you before, I'm not advocating anything. I'm not a Democrat; I'm a registered Republican.

I'm saying that this certainty about Obama's victory  is positively loopy, and that the talk about his success ignores the fact that he isn't successfully winning the Republicans.

By any conventional wisdom,Hillary has won the key demographics in the Dem primary, and Obama's wins may now come solely due to the independents and Republicans. If the Dems follow conventional wisdom, then there's no argument for Obama.

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 1:28pm

Ack!

"that the talk about his success ignores the fact that he isn't successfully winning the Republicans."

Um, that would be "isn't successfully winning *Democrats*."

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 1:38pm

jmkerr, so if Obama wins Texas and Ohio due to Independents and Republicans going for him, then he will have a big lead in delegates, a big lead in the popular vote, a big lead in states won. And you still think Hillary can convince superdelegates to go with her?

Of course you are advocating something, you are advocating that the superdelegates hand Hillary the nod. That would be insane for them to do and would lead to McCain crushing Hillary. Why not get rid of the whole nomination process and just do a big poll and let the party decide who to nominate then?

You are not happy with the way things are set up because it has hurt Hillary. Fine. But the time to have done something about how it is set up was years ago. You greatly overestimate superdelegates. They all would know if they gave Hillary the nod and she lost, it would be the end of all of their careers. If Obama loses, then they can say they just followed the will of the voters.

There is absolutely zero chance Hillary will get the nod if she loses Texas and Ohio. Even Bill admitted it. If she wins them and Pa. it is a different story, but I don't see it.

I don't care ultimately who wins in November, McCain or Obama. I really don't take it that personally. But you are really straining logic now. You made a great point about Ohio's independents and Republicans, but don't go off the rails. The Demographics in the Dem party won't win Hillary the general. there are not enough Dems, this is why we have open primaries and caucuses.

Nobody is certain about anything in politics.  

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 1:57pm

jmkerr, by the way, if you are Republican, don't you want the weaker candidate (by your estimation) to win?

I am an independent Dem. but love McCain, so I am pretty torn about this election. Not, of course, if Hillary wins the nod. then go Johnny go.

I just don't see how a registered Republican's word on anything Democratic can be looked at with anything but suspicion? Maybe you are shilling for Hillary because you know McCain can beat her. I mean, how can you be a Republican and support anything Clintonian?

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 2:01pm

"And you still think Hillary can convince superdelegates to go with her?"

First, I don't think she'll lose Texas and Ohio. If she loses both *on the strength of the Republican/Independent vote*, and she dominates the Democrat vote then I think she has a case. If they are close, and she loses close, and she loses close due to a 30-40 presence, then I suspect she'll just go right on without blinking. At least, that's what she should do.

No, I'm not advocating that the superdelegates choose Hillary. To the extent I'm advocating anything, I'm saying they should accept that the delegates are irrelevant in this particular election,given the strong and unchanging demographic results of the Democrat vote and it's various parts, as well as theparticipating independent/Republican voters.

They should either decide that the independent/Republican vote is real, and thus go with Obama. Or they should decide that the base has made it clear they want Hillary, and there's no counting on the independent/Republican vote. Either way, they should realize that the delegates are irrelevant.

"You are not happy with the way things are set up because it has hurt Hillary. "

No, it has nothing to do with that. I realize it's impossible talking to partisan zealots, but my interest is analytical. I don't care for Obama, but it has nothing to do with "happy" or "unhappy". I am talking about political reality, which *usually* says you don't put the liberal fantasy dreamboat up to get slaughtered. I won't be *unhappy* if they do otherwise. I will merely be astonished at either their stupidity or their political acumen (if he wins) in going against what would ordinarily say you don't run George McGovern.

"I just don't see how a registered Republican's word on anything Democratic can be looked at with anything but suspicion?"

What a moronic comment.  You don't have to take "my word" for anything. I am stating facts. Obama has only won the white Democrat vote twice in state primaries. Barring a huge demographic shift, Hillary will be ahead in the Democrat primary vote after Texas and Ohio (and possibly the overall vote including caucuses), *regardless of the outcome of the race*. Finally, it is so conventional as to be trite that Democrats have a fear of putting up a liberal candidate, and that normally a candidate who only won liberals and blacks would be viewed with extreme caution.

There's no "word" to take.  The facts are what they are. The only issue is whether or not you think the Dems should go with the hope of the independent vote and the base vote switching allegiance, or with the reality of firm base support. I'm not "shilling" for Hillary. I think she's the better candidate, but these facts are so obvious that I'm genuinely surprised that even the media--who's not terribly bright--haven't stumbled on them yet.

As for wanting the weakest candidate, I have said many times I haven't made up my mind between McCain and Clinton. I firmly believe that anyone who thinks Obama is a better general candidate is smoking crack.

Finally, are you capable of talking facts? You've spent three posts yammering on about me. I'm not the issue.

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 2:46pm

If I understand this thread correctly,  if uneducated whites don't vote for Obama they are racists, but if uneducated blacks do vote for Obama they are patriots. No wonder that the white working class feels deserted by the Democrats.

- r-ennis

February 25, 2008 at 3:01pm

Check out this census map that's reproduced in Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Image:German1346.gif

Another map on the same page makes clear that Germans are the largest heritage group throughout both Wisconsin and Ohio (Milwaukee, St. Louis and Cincinnati were the country's most "German" cities circa 1900), but clearly they're more densely concentrated in Wisconsin.

- JSmith125

February 25, 2008 at 3:41pm

.....and further to my last post, here's the equivalent map for Norwegian Americans, who are barely represented in Ohio at all:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Image:Norwegian1346.gif

In general, it's easy to overlook the influence of old-line, politically quiescent religious traditions, but the political cultures of these states were shaped in earlier generations when this stuff was front and center. See Michael Lind's book "Made in Texas" on how these developments played out in Texas, with German immigrants creating an entirely different culture and economy (the Texas of NASA, high-tech, Texas Instruments, Lyndon Johnson, etc.) from the reactionary, Southern-plantation-derived political culture that stuck us with GWB.

- JSmith125

February 25, 2008 at 3:56pm

"The only issue is whether or not you think the Dems should go with the hope of the independent vote and the base vote switching allegiance, or with the reality of firm base support." And what makes you so sure that she can win with the base support alone? People are not analytical machines but emotional and hopeful. On paper Hillary is a far worse candidate than Biden or even Richardson or Edwards, so why would she even get the nod either? But they all lost.

You keep insisting that Obama will lose the Dem. base in November, but besides some disaffected Hillary supporters and a percentage of the latino vote, where will they go? Ralph Nader? Hillary has not won any independent or Republican vote. She has only barely won the majority of the Dem base vote, and I am tired of your attitude that blacks don't count. If you ignore blacks, I will ignore Latinos.

I have been arguing facts, how can she make the case based on only on exit polling that she won the Dem. base. I agree she did, but she can't prove it. Besides, your argument is with open primaries. I think Democrats who only win the Dem base lose.

I am not a fanatic. I said I love McCain. I know from facts that Hillary can't win independents or Republicans, that she is a guaranteed loser. If you want to argue that Obama is not the best candidate, fine, but don't tell me Hillary is better. she is a disaster by most measures. She is losing to a black man with an arab name. If you want to make the case for Al Gore as a white knight, fine, but Hillary?

And I am not insulted by calling a statement moronic. Honestly, how can you call yourself Republican and support Hillary Clinton? For real Republicans she is the devil incarnate. I think your love affair with Hillary is palpable, and your disdain for anyone who doesn't share it unconstrained. This is why I find your straining logic to justify her losses to be so amusing. "She lost among Republicans, therefore she will win them" "she lost black votes in droves, therefore she will win even more in November" "she has lost 11 contests in a row, all by double digits, this proves her strength in the general" Wow, you have gone far beyond crack and on some serious mind altering drugs.

Obviously, your arguments are delusional. Hillary will never be President. I also don't care if Obama will never be either. You fantasy logic can't overcome the real world. Rant and insult all you want, but get over it soon, for your own mental health.

And I don't care if Obama gets slaughtered. Personally, for reasons I have said time and time again, this is not the time for any Democrat. Only McCain can extricate us out of Iraq, and we need a fiscal conservative (true one) more than ever so if he gets killed, what do I care? Really. I don't even live in the United States so it makes less difference to me than to you (I am a citizen though)

you have quite the ego if you think I am yammering on you, oh wait, I guess this counts as yammering.

It must be difficult to imagine that you are the smartest person in the room and frustrating as hell that nobody else thinks so. Could it be that you are not as smart as you think you are?

As to myself, I am wrong all the time. Maybe I am wrong now, it doesn't matter, when I go for my swim at the beach tonight I let my cares of the world wash off me. Opinions are like assholes, we all have one, but that doesn't mean we all have to be one.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 4:06pm

"If I understand this thread correctly,  if uneducated whites don't vote for Obama they are racists, but if uneducated blacks do vote for Obama they are patriots. No wonder that the white working class feels deserted by the Democrats."

An interesting comment.  What do you think is the appropriate term for people who might otherwise be expected -- on all the factors of loyalty, voting history, policies, promises etc -- to vote for a particular candidate, but who won't because of that candidate's racial identity?

- ironyroad

February 25, 2008 at 4:14pm

yes indeed, only Hillary supporters can argue that the woman who has lost the most states, lost the popular vote total, lost the pledged delegate counts, should be given the nod by superdelegates because Hillary has won a small sliver of white Democrat vote compared to Obama. Because, of course, white votes are worth more. Hillary shilling at its most absurd painted as "facts"

Next, Hillary has the cat vote in her pocket, lets make her queen of America. Only she can save America because she used to be married to a former President!!

Hillary supporters make Naderites and Paultards seem sane in comparison.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 4:18pm

I am sorry jmkerr, I really shouldn't slap you around like this, it is too much taking candy from a baby kind of thing. I should have more mercy on you since it is bad form to beat up someone when they are so far down, so I will revise all of my above statements and conclude:

Interesting, perhaps you are right, time will tell.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 4:23pm

A small but very significant moment in Cincinnati today. The popular black mayor, Mallory, got off the fence and endorsed Obama at a large rally (13,000 attended). The Clinton machine in Ohio was quite strong...emphasis on "was".

- fougasseu

February 25, 2008 at 8:10pm

TOLEDO, Ohio--One reason Barack Obama's campaign turned into such a juggernaut over the last few

- Anonymous

March 4, 2008 at 12:55pm

This piece in Saturday's Washington Post says Obama won't necessarily be going all out in Pennsylvania

- Anonymous

March 10, 2008 at 12:57am

It's been a while since I posed one of these political-sociological questions, but I think Indiana

- Anonymous

April 10, 2008 at 4:06pm

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis makes a couple legitimate points in this latest memo , but I'm

- Anonymous

April 24, 2008 at 2:07pm