Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

What Price For Electability?

Suffering chronic deficits in every objective metric of primary election success, Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination without persuading the Party's super delegates that she is a more electable general election candidate than Barack Obama.  In the approaching Pennsylvania primary, evidence supporting this argument is more important to the Clinton campaign than merely winning a majority of the votes.  Clinton needs Pennsylvania's exit polls to highlight Obama's continued weakness with white, less educated, blue-collar democrats to bolster her prediction that in November, Senator Obama will lose Pennsylvania, Ohio and thus the election.  

Senator Obama's difficulty with the "lunch-bucket" demographic is, at least in part, attributable to his race.  There are certainly other factors;  Clinton's campaign has been more focused on concrete economic policy than Obama's, and she is a known political commodity, but fundamentally, polling data and anecdotal evidence reveal a racial discomfort that permeates this demographic and influences their voting.  Every attack upon Obama, from the Jeremiah Wright issue to his tenuous connection with Islam resonates more with these white, working class voters than with democrats as a whole.

Essentially, this renders Hillary Clinton's colorless electability argument ejusdem generis to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's blunt declaration that some of his state's voters are not ready to vote for an African American.  Rendell's statment is certainly accurate, and the question for the Democratic party is whether to challenge or endorse Clinton's extrapulation of this truism to presidential unviability.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton's pessimistic view of democratic voters is accurate, and if nominated, despite pro-labor policies, Barack Obama would lose white, blue-collar voters to John McCain and thereby lose the election.  Assume this is true and ask what price should the Democratic party pay for the loayalty of these voters, and is no price too high?  Their policy concerns are already promoted, must the party accomodate their intolerance as well?  Democrats should not abandon their principles in pusuit of a single, though important, election.  For what is a man profited, if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul.


Comments (8)

erhaps Hillary Clinton's pessimistic view of democratic voters is accurate, and if nominated, despite pro-labor policies, Barack Obama would lose white, blue-collar voters to John McCain and thereby lose the election. Assume this is true and ask what price should the Democratic party pay for the loayalty of these voters, and is no price too high? Their policy concerns are already promoted, must the party accomodate their intolerance as well? Democrats should not abandon their principles in pusuit of a single, though important, election. For what is a man profited, if he should gain the whole world, and lose his own soul.

The other day it occurred to me that there is somewhat of a parallel here between us and the Repugs. The Repugs figured out that if they courted the Religious Right for their votes, they could lay us down every time.

I've been watching for years now and here's what I see: the old coalition the Democrats have relied on since the Southern Strategy started working for the Repugs - which is the old union/bluecollar worker+"elite east coast and west coast liberals" - isn't working. It's not enough to get us elected.

We can form a new coalition by bringing in the very people we have pretended to make welcome every time there is an election - true progressives, young voters (has no one noticed how well the Repugs have done with young voters? Extremism appeals to young voters, so even a slight movement left is enough to get a lot of them motivated, as well as us older progressives,) and of course African American voters, who have been in the same damn position non-African American progressive voters have been in. We get pushed to one side when the real stuff starts.

They depend on us because they think we have no where else to go, but what happens is, we don't vote. The south is full of people like this and we've been dangling down here in a Democratic dead zone for over a decade - Democrats just abandoned us to the tender mercies of the Religious Right and the Repugs stealing everything they can, as the Democrats run one Repug Lite supposedly "electable" candidate after another and lose.

How about we get smart and learn from our losses? I think it's our turn - the Democrats who matter just as much as the rest and who are dying to work really hard to put this thing together.

Tena, I'm going to make an appeal here out of respect for your intelligent posting. The use of the term "Repugs" doesn't advance your thesis and demeans the discourse by bringing it to the level of schoolyard name-calling. Moreover, while there are of course many repugnant Republicans, there are more than a few decent ones, some of whom even read TPM (and support Obama). I don't see any benefit to alienating them, and one of Obama's greatest strengths is his willingness to engage them.

avatar

In an election between John McCain and Barack Obama, what price will white blue-collar workers be willing to pay for their presumed racial bias?

Consider someone who is unemployed, can't afford health care, the next mortgage payment or $6-$8 per gallon of gas.

When you're facing poverty, it's a lot more difficult to cast your vote for someone who wants to extend tax breaks for the rich.

I believe that the last eight years have brought everyone face to face with what their lives would be like during the next four to eight years if there's a continuation of Bush administration policy.

So the real question is what price will white blue collar workers be willing to pay to elect someone who will make their lives even more of a living hell?

It seems they've been willing to pay quite a lot for quite a while. Many of these folks consistently vote against their own interest. It's something I don't understand. I know a guy who's a one-issue voter -- while he walks, talks and quacks like a Democrat, he is a registered Republican and always votes Republican because of one issue: abortion. When I talk with him, he will agree with me and my Dem talking points all day and all night, but ... and that's it. "But." He hangs onto that one issue. I'm sure that some of these Joe Sixpack/blue collar voters will see the light and take that leap because of their own suffering. However, I'm reminded of an old aunt of mine who always walked out of the room whenever an African American actor or entertainer appeared on TV. Some people will just never change.

Genghis - you guys here are sometimes so straight I don't know what to do with y'all. I haven't called them Republicans in so long that my fingers just type Repug.

But I'm sorry it offends your delicate sensibilities. I am used to a slighter ruder, decidedly snarkier way of commenting because I used to hang with ruder, snarkier, (and rather more brilliant than not,) people.

But I'll try to fit in.

[smile]

'Preciate it. As you must know, I am no stranger to snark nor rudeness, but I consider name-calling cliches to be a low form of snark, akin to "kool aid drinker" and "Hussein". I suppose that I do use "hillbot" on occasion, but I mean it to refer to a certain kind of idiot, not a generalization of Clinton supporters. Still, could be considered hypocritical.

Hmmm, I wonder about this because the polling shows greater willingness in America to vote for a black person than for a woman and by a significant margin. Even as a Clinton supporter, the electability issue in terms of accommodating oppression biases falls in his favor, not hers.

There are scads of polls showing greater willingness to vote black than female so this argument should be one that favors Obama. Sure there's a critical demographic that favors her - at the moment - but I trust that chromosomes will trump melanin even for that group.

Oregon Activist wrote:

"There are scads of polls showing greater willingness to vote black than female so this argument should be one that favors Obama. Sure there's a critical demographic that favors her - at the moment - but I trust that chromosomes will trump melanin even for that group."

You are referring to national, bipartisan polls. These polls do not isolate the data propping up Hillary Clinton's electability argument. The relevant data was clearly captured by the March 27, 2008 Pew Research Poll. The summary stated as follows, "In particular, white Democrats who hold unfavorable views of Obama are much more likely than those who have favorable opinions of him to say that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far; they also are more likely to disapprove of interracial dating, and are more concerned about the threat that immigrants may pose to American values. In addition, nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim.
Less educated and older white Democrats, who have not backed Obama in most primary elections, hold these values more commonly than do other Democrats."

This is the democratic constutency that votes overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, and that she will argue is necessary to elect a Democratic president. The issue, (assuming arguendo that the Clinton electability argument has merit) is whether the Democratic party should accomodate the preference of voters that believe equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far and disapprove of inter-racial dating in order to win an election. It's a question of conscience and the party's future strength.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 6-10

Book Cover

October 13-17

Book Cover

October 20-24

Book Cover

November 17-21>

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover





Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address