« Is America Turning Socialist? It Always Was …: The Times of India
Troy Anthony Davis Stay Of Execution Denied »



McCain Leads in Rural America (But Not By Enough)

September 22nd, 2008
By ELYAS BAKHTIARI

Print Print

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about how John McCain essentially drove a wedge between rural and urban America with the Sarah Palin pick and the overall tone of the RNC. And although I still think that is one of the biggest strategic benefits she brings to the ticket, a new poll from the Center for Rural Strategies suggests he still has some work to do to win rural voters by the margins he needs.

Not that he isn’t ahead. McCain leads Obama 51%-41% in the survey of 13 swing states. But that isn’t enough to win the election. While Obama isn’t going to actually win rural voters, McCain needs to improve on his current numbers for a few reasons:

  • Bush performed better in rural counties. In 2004 Bush won rural counties by nearly twice McCain’s current margin. His dominance in rural America essentially won him the election: “Kerry won nearly 52 percent in urban areas, where 73 percent of the voters lived in 2004. The Democrat failed to crack 40 percent in rural and exurban counties, which had 27 percent of the vote.”

  • Bush was ahead by more in September 2004. Although, not by much. At this point in the election Bush was leading Kerry with rural voters by 13%. He expanded that lead significantly by election day, and the McCain camp is looking to do the same. A Republican strategies and “adviser for the poll” (let that serve as a grain of salt when looking at the results) claims McCain is on pace to reach that goal.
  • The economy is rural voters’ top concern. Fifty-one percent of rural voters cited the economy as their top concern, followed by energy prices (25%), and Iraq (21%). Conventional wisdom says that’s bad news for McCain, but it’s not as serious of a problem as it seems, as I’ll explain in a moment. Moral values, by the way, was at the bottom of the list.

The bottom line is that McCain will lose the election unless he grows that 10-point lead (he may have to double it). Obama will likely win cities by bigger margins than Kerry or Gore, so McCain has his work cut out for him. But there are some things working in his favor:

  • He has momentum. His overall margin hasn’t increased by much—McCain lead Obama by nine points in a similar survey conducted in May. However, his favorability ratings have improved (primarily with Republicans and Independents), and voters’ perceptions of him have improved on every single issue, even “most likely to bring change” and the economy, two categories Obama led in May.

  • He has Sarah Palin. While she’s losing her shine elsewhere, she still remains very popular in rural areas. Sixty-five percent of respondents said she represents the values of rural communities, and 54% said she’s ready to be president. Half of voters surveyed said the Palin pick made them more likely to vote for McCain.
  • He can win on any issue. As I alluded to earlier, it’s no longer a major problem that the economy is dominating the election. Rural voters now favor McCain 46-45 when it comes to dealing with economic issues. The fundamentals of his rural strategy are strong. If the focus turns to Iraq, taxes, or values, however, his advantage in rural areas grows significantly.

It could swing either way, but the rural-urban divide could very well determine the election. We know where both candidates will win, but the question is how much they will win by in those areas. Obama is already where he needs to be in urban areas, and his focus should be primarily on boosting turnout. McCain has to really run up the numbers, and Sarah Palin has helped with that (so far).

Cross-posted at Ablogistan.

UPDATE: I missed a question that reveals a major hurdle to Obama’s rural strategy: Voter’s were asked if the “people in my community” are ready for a black president. Only half (53%) said yes, while 23% said their community wasn’t ready for a black president, and 29% opted not to answer or said neither option was appropriate. This stat wasn’t included in the press release and initial coverage of the survey, but those numbers are higher than national averages.



This entry was posted on Monday, September 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Barack Obama, Polls, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 1 Comment

    • ^
    • v
    Very interesting stuff. Wouldn't you suspect, though, that Palin has already won over whoever she will win over for McCain? What can she do now to convince those in rural America that they should vote for M-P if they aren't already doing that? The only answer seems to be sending Palin herself out to rural communities the way Hillary sent Bill Clinton out to rural NC, IN, KY, OH and WV in the primary. But then McCain would lose his own drawing power.

    Also, as someone who lives in small town/rural Appalachia I can tell you that anger over the economy is intense. Where I happen to live Obama will lose big, mostly because folks here in East TN have been voting Republican since Parson Brownlow in 1864. But in southeast Ohio or southside Virginia or Piedmont NC, it might be a different story. If voters get beyond the race issue, they may very well go to Obama in numbers enough to give Obama those states.

    Bush ran the table in rural America in 2004 because he talked up values issues, he pushed terrorism/national security over everything else, and Kerry had absolutely no appeal in rural America (even less than Obama). The primary issues in rural America in 2004 were values (gay marriage in particular) and national security - of course Bush would clean house. Bush also had a top-notch GOTV operation through churches that worked wonders.

    If the economy stays where it is, Obama will do much better than Kerry in November. It's as if these voters want an excuse to get beyond race and vote for the Democrat.

    See also this report from eastern Kentucky today, where Hillary Clinton personally convinced several Pike Countians to vote for Obama.

    http://www.news-tribune.net/statenews/kentuckys...
    This kind of thing will push rural voters to Obama - especially conservative Democrats.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Is America Turning Socialist? It Always Was …: The Times of India
Troy Anthony Davis Stay Of Execution Denied »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.