Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama’s fundraising speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last week. But that’s wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.
To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can’t carry Florida–and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.
Some Democrats insist that Obama need not worry about these states because he will be able to make up for a defeat in Ohio or even Pennsylvania with a victory in Virginia or Colorado. But in Virginia, McCain will be able to draw upon coastal suburbanites closely tied to the military. These voters backed Democrats like Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, who are both veterans, but they may not go for Obama.
And in the Southwest, McCain will be able to challenge Obama among Hispanics. So to win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters “clinging” to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region.
http://www.tnr.com/environmentenergy/story.html?id=bf08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b0f24b5a
Tags: Florida, general election, heartland, industrial heartland, obama, vulnerable
April 16, 2008 at 2:16 am |
A look at the white working class’s relationship with earlier Democratic candidates underscores the various reasons why. Many white working class voters in these states used to be loyal Democrats.
The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, swept Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Many of these voters have always been highly patriotic, church-going hunters who were skeptical about the benefits of trade and immigration and–what Obama did not mention–black political assertiveness. But they still distrust Republicans as the defenders of business and look up to Democrats (or at least some Democrats) as being more in tune with average Americans like themselves.
Democrats have won over these voters when their advantage on the economy has come to the fore. And they’ve lost these voters when their positions on the economy–or national security–were not sufficiently compelling to overcome the Republican advantage on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or gun control.
Why? Because with the exception of a few rabid single-issue voters, the white working class hasn’t simply displaced its economic anxiety, or bitterness, onto God, guns, and gay marriage; they’re actually quite concerned about the economy.
Historically, there are three circumstances in which Democrats have been able to win over these voters:
The Unacceptable Republican: Republicans have run candidates with whom white working class voters have not been able to identity–either because of their backgrounds, beliefs, or actions. In 2006 that was obviously true of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell–an African American and a far right zealot–and Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who was linked to former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The Acceptable Democrat: The Democrats have sometimes run candidates in these states who are sufficiently moderate on guns, abortion, and religion to neutralize the Republican appeal on these issues. That was the case with Pennsylvania pro-life Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey, who defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in 2006.
The Empathetic Democrat: The Democrats have run a candidate who can connect with these voters in spite of his or her beliefs on abortion and guns. Pollsters try to get at this by asking voters whether a candidate “cares about people like me.” Sometimes, voters will think a candidate cares about them because they think he is “one of them.” Bill Clinton, of course, was a genius at this. He could be the candidate of Hope, Arkansas, and Yale Law School. Other Democrats have succeeded because they have come off as a father (or mother) figure, who, although from the upper class, still cares about the average American.
If you look at the upcoming presidential election in this light, the Democratic prospects do not appear to be good. McCain is an acceptable Republican–a war hero and a reputed moderate. (His greatest inherent liability, which could make him unacceptable regardless of his ideas or background, is his age.) Both Democratic candidates, whatever their protestations, are seen as coming out of the party’s liberal wing on guns and abortion.
That leaves the possibility that these voters will see the Democratic candidate as either “one of them,” or as a father or mother figure who understands their plight. Both candidates clearly have problems on these scores, but Obama’s may be even more severe than Clinton’s.
As an African American, he has one strike against him, as has become apparent even in the Democratic primary exit polls. He has tried to appear above race, but he will continually be reminded of his ties to Jeremiah Wright (and his not wearing a flag on his lapel, and his wife’s statements about not being “proud” of America) during a general election.
Obama comes from a modest background and has tried to appeal as a candidate of both Harvard Law School and Chicago’s Back-of-the-Yards, where he organized laid-off steel workers, but he hasn’t been able to pull it off. His manner, his tenor, and his diction are Harvard Law, and when he starts dropping his ‘g’s,” he sounds strained. And Obama is too young, and lacks the stature, to appear as a Franklin Roosevelt-style father figure.
Obama does have an astounding eloquence, and an ability to put a position across, but that eloquence has been reserved largely for anti-war and good-government positions. His stance against the war may resonate (though that will depend on whether McCain’s qualification as commander-in-chief trumps his unpopular stance on the war). But where McCain is most vulnerable and where voters are most likely to smile on a Democrat–on everyday economic issues–Obama’s heart doesn’t appear to be in it.
These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they’re much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters’ opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological–a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called “false consciousness.”
On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade–Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement–he was simply pandering to these voters’ displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, “I am really one of you, and I am not one of them.”
There is even a slight chance that Obama’s words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination. Obama is almost certain to have more elected delegates in June than Hillary Clinton, but if he loses Pennsylvania by 15 percentage points (which is not out of the question), that could start a media firestorm around his candidacy that could contribute to other primary defeats and to superdelegate support for Clinton.
It’s not likely to happen, but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters’ hearts, in San Francisco, it has suddenly become conceivable.
John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
http://www.tnr.com/environmentenergy/story.html?id=bf08a566-7c44-446a-aa34-7889b0f24b5a
April 16, 2008 at 2:16 am |
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/15/progressive-group-attacks-mccain-in-ad/?mod=WSJBlog
In the neverending quest to portray Sen. John McCain as a copy of President Bush, the Democratic-aligned Progressive Media USA released an advertisement that paints the two as one. Progressive Media USA has plans for a four-month, $40 million ad campaign against the Arizona senator and Republican presidential candidate. For its newest spot, titled “Out of Touch,” the group spliced together soundbites of Bush and McCain commenting on the economy. “We’re just in a rough patch,” Bush says at one point. “And we are in a rough patch,” McCain says. Then the screen flashes to read: “232,000 American jobs lost in 2008—Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
http://www.progressivemediausa.org/
April 16, 2008 at 2:18 am |
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. — Edward G. Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, demonstrated his value to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last weekend, helping her quickly devise a strategy to counter and exploit remarks by Senator Barack Obama. When Mr. Obama provided an opening by saying that small-town voters in Pennsylvania facing hard economic times “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion” to explain their frustrations, Mr. Rendell was ready to pounce. He instantly mobilized his political machinery, organizing many mayors in Pennsylvania to speak on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf and to hold rallies. He also suggested that she reshuffle her schedule to visit Scranton, where her father grew up and where, in a hastily arranged visit on Sunday, she highlighted her link with small-town Pennsylvania.
But Mr. Rendell could not actually speak with Mrs. Clinton, in part because he was consumed with the intricate task of negotiating with others to map out her final week before the state’s primary next Tuesday — deciding who gets to see the candidate, and who does not.
Few presidential candidates have ever had the benefit of a local promoter like Mr. Rendell, who before being elected governor was the mayor of Philadelphia. He is campaigning as vigorously for Mrs. Clinton’s election as he would for his own, and constantly talking her up with remarks that, alas, sometimes go off message. (On Monday, he shrugged off the impact of Mr. Obama’s comments. “It will cost a couple of points at the margin, but it won’t be a sea-changer,” the governor said.)
But Mr. Rendell is at the ready. He helps craft Mrs. Clinton’s messages, escort her around the state and introduce her at events. He has enlisted his fund-raisers to assist her, ginned up endorsements and coaxed some superdelegates into staying neutral until after the Pennsylvania primary. He has made commercials for her. He juggles state business and her political business with equal urgency — haggling over financing for a development project in Wilkes-Barre and an airport expansion in Erie one minute, calling in to Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC the next. His credibility as a local spokesman automatically vaulted him into the national spotlight.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/us/politics/15rendell.html
“Every time I turn on the TV, I see you,” Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a leading supporter of Mr. Obama, told Mr. Rendell backstage recently at a Democratic dinner here in the Philadelphia suburbs. Mrs. Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, attended the same dinner. Ms. Clinton spoke briefly to the crowd, and when she said she was proud to be campaigning with Mr. Rendell, the audience whooped and hollered. “Well, gosh,” she said, looking slightly amazed. “I feel like I should just stop there.” Mr. Rendell is redefining the role of political host, putting to shame the other Democratic governors who have endorsed either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama and have helped them navigate their states ahead of a primary or caucus.
And his bluntness frequently makes for good copy. For example, he told reporters in March that he would happily support a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket (“Either way,” he said). He said in a recent interview with The New York Times that the Clinton campaign had made some “God-awful decisions.” He also said that women had warmed up to her tremendously during the course of the campaign, after having initially considered her “an intellectually snobby feminist.”
But with a three-decade record on the public stage, Mr. Rendell is seen as an undeniable asset to Mrs. Clinton, particularly in the Philadelphia media market, where 40 percent of the state’s voters live. He won re-election as governor in 2006 by a landslide 20 percentage points and generally gets good grades for sprucing up the reputation and finances of his Rust Belt state. Even as he promotes Mrs. Clinton — she is the best prepared to be president, he says, and she “gets it” — Mr. Rendell is careful to keep the door open with Mr. Obama should she not succeed in winning her party’s presidential nomination.
In an interview in his ornate wood-carved office in Harrisburg, the governor referred to Mr. Obama several times in positive ways, as he did publicly at the Democratic dinner here. He frequently says he will “work my butt off” for Mr. Obama if Mr. Obama wins the nomination. His real ire is directed at the news media for “drinking the Kool-Aid” and not being tougher on Mr. Obama. “The press hates the Clintons,” he said in the interview. “No question about it.”
Mrs. Clinton, of New York, still maintains a lead in the polls here, but that lead was shrinking, at least before Mr. Obama, of Illinois, made his comments about small-town voters. Even Mr. Rendell had been revising downward his estimate of her margin of victory, to four percentage points from five — far lower than the double-digit lead that polls first suggested she held here. If Mrs. Clinton does not win Pennsylvania, most agree, she cannot go on.
But if she does win, and by a healthy margin, Mr. Rendell, 64, who is in his second and final term as governor, will undoubtedly receive a good share of the credit — and perhaps some of the political spoils should she make it to the White House. The Clinton administration delivered for Philadelphia when Mr. Rendell was mayor, providing help to revitalize the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and to put more cops on the streets, a program that Mrs. Clinton said last week she would revive. President Bill Clinton appointed Mr. Rendell’s wife, Marjorie O. Rendell, to the federal bench in 1994 and elevated her to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1997. He named Mr. Rendell chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 election.
While some suggest that Mr. Rendell may be angling for vice president, he is an unlikely choice. A native New Yorker and a Jew, he would not expand Mrs. Clinton’s base. But he does not rule out interest in serving in her cabinet, after his term as governor ends in 2011. They are clearly comfortable with each other; Mrs. Clinton seems to light up around Mr. Rendell and enjoy the game a bit more. Those who know him and Mr. Clinton say the two share many traits, like outsized personalities, a natural gift for politics and a love of the sport (and sports, or at least watching them on television).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/us/politics/15rendell.html
etc
April 16, 2008 at 2:20 am |
In a speech at the Building Trades Legislative Conference, a coalition of blue-collar labor unions, Mr. Obama seemed as though he was going to bypass his remarks about Americans who are “bitter” over their economic circumstances and cling to God and guns. It was not included in his prepared speech text, but near the end of the 30-minute address he broached the subject.
“I know that there’s been a lot of fuss over the last couple of days because I said that people were bitter. People seemed to misunderstand what that means,” he said. “Yes, people are angry. If you’ve been filling up your gas tank you’re angry. If you’ve watched your entire community decimated because a steel plant is closed, that will make you mad. You’ve got to feel some frustration.”
As Mr. Obama spoke about the controversy, the crowd largely listened in silence. When he concluded, applause broke out, but it was far from the standing ovation Mr. Obama received when he addressed the matter to voters late last week in Indiana.
Yesterday, as he continued to offer his contrition, he told the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News: “The problem was that I just mangled it, which happens sometimes.”
A sentiment of regret was absent from his remarks today. Instead, he suggested to a crowd of a few thousand labor union members that his remarks were misunderstood. He made no mention of what his advisers viewed as the most problematic line – “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” – and sought to simply tap into people’s anger. “You’ve got to feel some anger when you get a sense that the American way of life for so many people feels like it’s slipping away,” he said. “But just because you’re mad, just because it seems like nobody’s listening to ordinary Americans, that’s not a reason to give up hope.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/in-labor-speech-obama-revisits-bitterness/#comments