Obama Focuses On Blue Collar Voters After West Virginia Primary Loss (UPDATED)
Democratic Senator Barack Obama apparently did feel the landslide of votes crushing against him in yesterday’s whopping West Virginia primary loss to Senator Hillary Clinton: today he’s out on the hustings, busily trying to shore up support among blue collar workers.
It’s a wise move, since Clinton, her supporters, and pundits will continue to talk about Obama’s very real blue collar problem. And, according to the New York Times, he is wasting no time to begin working on it:
How big a problem does Senator Barack Obama really have among white working-class voters? And what —if anything — can he do about it as he heads into the general election?
The Times notes that Obama’s campaign is pooh-poohing the idea that the West Virginia loss — which was expected — is that big a deal. But, just as Clinton hoped, the size of her victory underscored Obama’s weakness.
“You just can’t abstract from primary voters to general election voters — and all of her voters are going to vote for him,” said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who is supporting Mr. Obama. Mr. Jordan pointed to a Washington Post/ABC News Poll published this week that showed Mr. Obama with a lead over Mr. McCain in a hypothetical fall match-up, and being competitive with him among these same working-class voters.
Still, there is a pattern of weakness that has shadowed Mr. Obama as he has marched his way toward winning his party’s nomination. Even accounting for the fact that West Virginia may have been the toughest state he has faced, the contours of Mr. Obama’s defeat were daunting: more than half of the Democrats said Mr. Obama did not share their values, and 47 percent said they would not vote for him if he were their nominee.
Obama’s blue collar problem isn’t new.
Obama made a concerted pitch to appeal to blue collar workers in Iowa. He worked on changing his approach to blue collar workers in Pennsylvania. Television talking (and screaming) heads have pontificated on it. Meanwhile, throughout the campaign organized labor has been divided on Obama and Clinton.
All the while Obama has insisted he could win his existing base and win over the blue collar workers.
The Clinton campaign will be arguing (as Clinton is already) that without these voters Obama can’t win in a general election — which has its key assumptions (a) Democratic voters will vote the same way in the general election as in primaries, (b) Obama can’t make significant inroads among blue collar workers, and (c) the unmentionable issue (which Hillary Clinton mentioned last week) of race.
But the key question question is likely going to be whether he has made inroads and appears to be making them making them. West Virginia itself won’t sell superdelegates on Clinton’s argument, particularly because the Democratic party would risk losing black voters if superdelegates ignored the pledge delegates and popular vote count.
So expect to see more of Obama out on the hustings, working to shore up what clearly is his weak point, while Clinton argues he simply can’t do it and that the party needs someone who already appeals to blue collar workers to win.
The bottom line: it is an Obama vulnerability and if the Obama team is smart they’ll make wooing blue collar workers an ongoing project. It is a weaknesss the GOP has most assuredly noticed.
UPDATE: The AP’s Nedra Pickler says maybe Obama should worry:
Barack Obama is in hot pursuit of general election voters, hoping America won’t notice he got his head handed to him in West Virginia.
The Illinois senator virtually pretended the primary didn’t happen Tuesday, with no election night speech or any public appearance at all after the polls closed and gave Hillary Rodham Clinton a more than 2-1 victory even though her candidacy is likely doomed.
At Obama’s Chicago headquarters, advisers said there was no reason to worry — West Virginia was demographically suited to Clinton and won’t be part of their general election plans. It’s also true that Clinton’s win is unlikely to slow his march toward the nomination — Obama picked up 30 superdelegates this week, more than the 28 total pledged delegates up for grabs in West Virginia.
But maybe the Obama camp should be more worried. The voters who went against Obama Tuesday night — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees — don’t just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win.
They live in places like Macomb County, Mich., where Obama planned to start his day Wednesday by dropping by a Chrysler plant. That’s a recognition that he has work to do to win over working class voters even if his campaign doesn’t say it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “Obama Focuses On Blue Collar Voters After West Virginia Primary Loss (UPDATED)”
Considering that 1 in 6 West Virginians are on food stamps I'm not at all suprised by Hillary's margin of victory.
The West Virginia resounding defeat of Obama, who is trotting around as the self-proclaimed general election candidate, was an expression of PEOPLE POWER that has brought down governments and changed goverments in other countries. The PEOPLE POWER of Sen Clinton's smashing victory has proclaimed she is the Democratic presidential nominee. The PEOPLE POWER of Sen Clinton's victory trounced the pro-Obama biased media. Superdelegates who are endorsing Obama in an end run around the Democratic nomination process to swipe the nomination for Obama should LISTEN UP and heed the supreme force of PEOPLE POWER that buttresses Sen. Clinton.
“OBAMA BACKERS MAKE THEIR THREAT” – Executive Intelligence Review – “Those who are attempting to shut down the Clinton campaign and control this Presidential election have no allegiance to (the) Democratic Party, or to the United States.”
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3520threa…
This is a serious challenge to how our nation deals with its race issues.
Acknowledging that the problem exists (electability) is only acknowledging a fact. Even overt racists can't be excludied from the election porcess in a democracy.
Somewhere along the line, though, a decision has also to be made about acknowleging the opposite: that racism is very corrosive. The inbred mentalities of small towns and uniform societies must be challenged by the ;'elites' who know better.
Now that 'white Ameriaca' is part of every comment about the primaries. I find it extremely threatening, that no one feels free to speak openly about the need to leave the 'white' mentality behind.
Not addressing the problems of the status-quo is tantamount to endosing it, at dome point.
Where are the prominent Democrats who ahould be talking about this publically?
They are too afraid to lose votes, apparently. That's reality, too, but it's a very treatening one, the way I see it.
I think it's going to be amusing to acth Obama “reaching out” to those voters he and his supporters have been denigrating as dumb hicks clinging to guns and religion.
Tully,
Those 'dumb hicks” have been called dumb hicks only by Obama's opponents, not by Obama. So, in the ineterests of credibility, I suggest you direct your remarks at those who coined the phrase.
“Dumb' is as much a part of the electorate as is racial prejudice..
Now that's something real, not maufactured, that oculd be discussed to better effect.
I agree with runasim. Senator Obama has never said “dumb hicks”. Only those wanting to make bigger political hay of his words has done that. 'Nuff said on that.
Obama does has a problem with a influential portion of the electorate. He may or may not be able to overcome their resounding disapproval of him. But Senator Obama has been exemplary in not becoming bitter or angry at those voters. He acknowledged his problem and is trying to deal with it.
That's all he can do,
crat3,
If I may quote StockBoySF from a comment in a previous post:
“Obama has won 12 (yes twelve) states by the same percentage (or more) that Hillary won tonight (at least as I write this- with some 92% of the WV vote in). Some of these states are pretty significant, too, including Colorado (Obama got 67%), Kansas (74%), Minnesota (66%), Alaska (75%) and Idaho (80%).”
You say “resounding victory” and “smashing defeat” as if Hillary went for the jugular last night and forced Obama out of the race. Needless to say, I think the general consensus is that it didn't much matter. From my point of view, the results just seem to show where Obama has work to do come November.
And as far as “trotting around as the self-proclaimed general election candidate”, if you rewind the clock about a year, it seems we have a role reversal in who is doing the trotting.
T-Steel, I think that its too late to 'deal' with the problem. In the beginning of the primary season, Mr. Obama was a relatively unknown commodity. After several months, even though little is truly known about his views, his accomplishments, his associations or his achievements; a majority of the electorate has already formed an opinion of him that is unlikely to change. The same holds true for the other senators, Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton. McCain is the straight talking war-hero maverick senator from AZ while Clinton is the power-hungry carpet-bagger from New York, Arkansas, Chicago, Ill.
Whether the impressions that have been created by the candidates and the media within the voting public have any basis in reality is very debatable. That they are unlikely to change between now and November is not. All three have been tagged, fairly or unfairly, and must work for the Presidency based on these early-formed impressions.
The inbred mentalities of small towns and uniform societies must be challenged by the ;'elites' who know better. which would keep those misguided “all politics is local” types under the thumb of whom? Of runisim & similar Fidel-wannabes?
I'm sorry, should I have said “inbred mentalities of small towns” as you did, runasim? Maybe gone with the “less-educated working-class white vote” and “older white blue-collar workers” as much of the media does?
Let's check Associated Press, shall we?
Highly favorable demographics helped Hillary Rodham Clinton rack up one of her largest victory margins of the 2008 Democratic primary season in West Virginia. The exit polls recorded several demographic extremes among groups with a strong history of solidly backing Clinton:
- Roughly 95 percent of West Virginia Democratic voters were white. Only the Democratic primaries in New Hampshire and Vermont and Democratic caucuses in Iowa had that high a proportion of white voters this year.
- It was the electorate with the highest proportion – seven in 10 – of people who lack a college degree. The same held true for whites without a college degree.
- Half of voters were from rural areas, second only to Vermont for rural voters in Democratic primaries this year (though Vermont did go for Obama nevertheless).
- And the West Virginia electorate was among the bottom five Democratic primaries in terms of income, with around 55 percent reporting 2007 family income of less than $50,000.
Shorter version: “Poor dumb white hicks vote for Hillary.” But maybe it would be more politic to stick with Obama's own description of them as people “who cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?
You can quibble about the euphemisms but the message still comes through loud and clear. News flash: this is obviously a large part of the Democratic base. You don't win the White House by dissing them. And once dissed, they have very long memories. As I said, it's going to be amusing watching those outreach efforts.
I just saw a news item that Edwards is set to endorse Obama tonight. Despite Edwards' limited appeal nationally, I think this endorsement matters. First, it's yet another sign to the superdelegates that it's over. They can continue moving to Obama. Second, if, but only if, Edwards actively campaigns for Obama in places like western PA and Ohio, it could truly help him pick up those states in November. But that's only if he truly campaigns for Obama for a while. If he gives his press conference and goes home, this only matters to superdelegates.
As long as Hillary sticks to her guns and takes the fight to the convention [as Teddy the Fat did in '80 against Carter while 700 delegates behind!], the maneuvering will continue and, like that Dickens character [Micawber?] something might turn up.
And she may be waiting for '12 after Obama gets clobbered by Reagan Democrats. Tully is correct. They do have very long memories, and “bitter clinging” plus Wright popping out again like a cuckoo clock could make Obama a McGovern type loser.
I'm waiting for Gee-mah to endorse. That'll be the kiss of death.
Tully,
Having lived in small town, inbred white Anerica, I know exactly what i'm saying.
A little truth telling shouldn't make anyone faint.
A man in WV was showing off a T-shirt with Obama represented as a monkey!!
Should we just pretend that sort of thing doesn't happen?
Should we ,as a nation, pander to it?
There are issues here larger than winning elections!
That they are being addressed by political sniping is contemptible, IMO.
Daveinboca,
Challenging what is wrong in our country,, small town and big ciiy alike, does not mean confrontation or street brawls.
However, we have to sop sweeping things under the rug and politically pandering .to the worst of intsincts.
Language means a lot, as even Obama's uninteded slip demonstrated,
Talking firmly but diplomatically is a lost art, one that we should resurrect and use, rather than resorting to negative attacks and sniping.
It's possible to get a message across without creating an Axis of Evil, for pete's sake!
As I'm not a politician, my sometimes careless words are not going to affect elections.
I expect people in leadership positions to do better than I can, not worse.
A man in WV was showing off a T-shirt with Obama represented as a monkey!! Should we just pretend that sort of thing doesn't happen? Should we ,as a nation, pander to it?
Well, as many others have likely already pointed out across the blogosphere by now, some large part of this nation has been doing exactly that for the last seven-some years. It just wasn't Obama involved. Given the players, I sense a major double standard there.
Once the line has been pushed on Obama's behalf that “Only dumb people vote for Hillary”, they can expect to have a lot of trouble subsequently getting those so labelled to vote for Obama, instead of for someone else who hasn't blatantly insulted them. (Do note that applies regardless of the truth or falsity of the insult.)
And that damage is done already. It was done when Obama made that remark about “clinging to guns and God” to a group of rich white San Francisco liberals. All since has been salt in the wound, but Obama his own self made the first cut unassisted.
Tully, there's clearly a difference between a t-shirt with a white man as a monkey and one with a black man as a monkey that requires no double standard. There's a huge history of racist depictations of African-Americans as sub-human primates, i.e., monkeys. It's the difference between depicting Warren Buffett as money-grubbing and a Jewish man as money grubbing. The first is simply an opinion about Buffett the individual, and another is an attempt to categorize an entire group of people using the ethnic stereotypes and images that have been used to keep that group out of general social acceptance for generations. If someone can point to a decades long depictment of rich white peope as monkeys, then I'm wrong.
That said, I don't hold one individual wearing a stupid t-shirt as representative of anything much without further evidence. While race issues are playing a role in this campaign, I haven't yet seen evidence that it's more than about 15% of the electorate. Yes, it has made a difference in various outcomes, but that must be put in the context of the (large) majority of Clinton supporters voting for completely different reasons.
Tully.
Are you saying that we shoud just accept perceptions (like the misrepreentsion of Obma's 'clinging to guns” remark) instead of pushing back with an element of truth and intelligence?
That's the most depressing hope killing proposition I've heard yet.
That implies that elections have no real meaning, and that they will always go to the biggest showman and the biggest successful lie.
GAWD!
_____________
“I don't hold one individual wearing a stupid t-shirt as representative of anything much without further evidence. “
The point is that he was surrounded by onlookers and unembarrassed to do this in front of TV camers. That means something!
It means that it's perfectly okay in some parts of the country.
Well, it shouldn't be okay with anyone.
'Oh well, let's look for proof,' is just another way of sweeping it under the rug.
.
I was saying all this last night at this site, and was explained how it doesn't matter in terms of the nomination.
Maybe not the nomination, but he now has six months to really work and bring the working class voters into his fold. Even if racism is a factor in a WV loss, I don't think you can claim this everywhere where Obama's lost the WC vote. I think it's more of a feeling among those voters that he's not speaking to them.
I was looking at a map of county-by-county wins last night, and was surprised to see how many counties went to Clinton vs. Obama. The general election is largely winner-take-all, and if a similar map shows up then, I don't think it will be Obama in the White House.
I understand your point, runasim, but at the same time if we take one person as representative of all West Virginians, all Clinton supporters, all white blue collar workers, etc., then we can also fall into the opposite trap where we select one moment as representing the essense of some person, group, or time, and ignoring all other complicating factors. This is what people do when they take the “clinging” comment out of context and use it as evidence of Obama's true, hidden nature, or the nature of liberals, etc.
Pacatrue,
Of course, doing the same thing in reverse would be the worst possible reaction.
I'm not recommending that elections should be used to prosecute our problems.
I do, believe, however that it is necessary to acknowledge them . We must find a diplomatic, civil language with which we can bring all the stuff under our rug out into sunshine. That's a tall order, but it's frustrating to see how everyone avoids it, denies it, or uses it to political advantage —without trying at all.
The result is, I believe encouragement to continue as before.
.
[...] Richard Palace wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt“You just can’t abstract from primary voters to general election voters — and all of her voters are going to vote for him,” said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who is supporting Mr. Obama. Mr. Jordan pointed to a Washington … [...]
[...] Richard Palace wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt“You just can’t abstract from primary voters to general election voters — and all of her voters are going to vote for him,” said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who is supporting Mr. Obama. Mr. Jordan pointed to a Washington … Read the rest of this great post here [...]
What, runasim, no one is allowed to have an opinion of Obama as an individual that includes da monkey? Yes, it IS a double standard, and the excuse for employing that double standard is race. Personally I find both depictions offensive, but that the glee with which many many thousands have pushed the Chimpy Bush meme for seven years is so lightly dismissed (even celebrated) while one moron with an Obama chimp image is held up as a despicable totem–that's a definite double standard. All you do by hooking it to race is attempt to rationalize that double standard as justified in your eyes, but it is STILL a double standard.
Are you saying that we shoud just accept perceptions (like the misrepreentsion of Obma's 'clinging to guns” remark) instead of pushing back with an element of truth and intelligence?
Nope to the actual question–I was not saying that, and never would–but I completely disagree with your parenthetical. Don't fool yourself. It wasn't in the least misrepresented or misperceived–Obama said what he said and he said it in the context noted to the audience noted, and the meaning was clear. “We've got to help those poor misguided idjits who don't think like us.” Way to go for those hearts and minds!
I'll repeat: Obama will not win those votes by insulting those voters. And I'll repeat again: This applies regardless of whether or not his insulting statements are true or false, so side discussions about whether rural Pennsylvanians are in fact God-blinded bigoted gunclingers or not are irrelevant. What counts is that they mightily resent being CALLED God-blinded bigoted gunclingers, and aren't likely to vote for the person calling them that.