Appalachia: Not Voting for Obama, No Matter Who The Running Mate

SurveyUSA ran a mammoth "A Million Little Vice Presidents" Poll in Virginia, which shows some interesting results. While a Barack Obama-John Edwards ticket is clearly the strongest, primarily due to name recognition, voters in the Shenandoah region show no movement towards the Democratic ticket, even when there's a Southern White Male in the #2 slot. This suggests that with Obama as the nominee, Democrats will get walloped in West Virginia, Southern Ohio, Eastern Kentucky, etc. no matter what they do.

But what's true for Appalachia might not be true for the rest of Ohio, or for Florida. If Obama-Clinton seals a victory in those two states, while preserving Obama's advantage in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, it has to be worth considering.

The other bit of good news is that they had Obama up 7 in the Commonwealth, after previous polls had suggested it might be entirely out of play. Obama needs both Virginia and Colorado to be in play in order to spread the McCain campaign thin enough to avoid a repeat of the 2004 "six months in Ohio and Florida" campaign.

Comments

[Stephen]

It cannot be said enough: the best possible result would be for Obama to win the White House while losing all the Confederacy - except VA and FL, but those two don't really belong to the CSA anymore.

It very well could be the dawning of a new day in American society.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Stephen, please don't be blind to the beauty of Dixie voting for a black man!

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

Yeah, I think it would be very cool to see Obama win Georgia or Mississippi. I mean, in Mississippi he needs about 20% of the white vote.

[Corvus9]

Considering all the shit Florida has gotten us into the last 8 years, I kind of hope Obama focuses more on the North and Southwest than Florida. I am sick of Florida. I am sick of them being important, of having to suck up to a bunch of right-wing Cubans by making life harder for the people who still live there, of having the state have to be treated with kid gloves when its entire political establishment maneuvers for even more influence by moving up in the primary schedule. Their incompetence got us in this fucked up situation with Bush, and I am tired of the political world treating them as The Swing State. Fuck them. Let them vote for the loser for once, and whistled past with the rest of Dixie.

(Uh, all nice Floridians like litbrit excepted from the unhinged rant above. It just seems like they have more assholes than nice people now, is all.)

[Joe]

I wonder if Bob Barr will make a difference in Dixie or in the Mountain West. I could see him taking 5-15% of the White vote in Dixie and 5-15% of the vote overall in places like Idaho and the Dakotas. Barr may be able to siphon off enough votes to make Obama competitive in several red states.

[Stephen]

Stephen, please don't be blind to the beauty of Dixie voting for a black man!

But it won't, and seeing the Democrats win an election not only when we refused to nominate a southern white guy, but with a black man as the nominee, of all things, would be a far more beautiful thing than continuing to worship at the altar of southern revisionism and entitlement.

[litbrit's id]

Okay, comedy break here: go see this Red State Update over at TRex's: two very typical Repubs exhort Dems to please do as they did and pick a candidate, for Pete's sake, so they can know whom to vote against. I love the Republican slogan, too: Fuck it: McCain.

And Corvus9, not so fast on giving up on the Cubans: according to FOX (of all goddamned sources), the most hardline of hardliner groups, CAN, is actually hosting Obama for a speech, hoping his prominence will help them regain theirs. Meanwhile, rival factions in the exile community have varying differences: some want the embargo over, period; others want reform of existing embargo conditions, and a few want thing to remain as they were. That said--and having lived in Miami for years when I was younger and had many Cuban neighbors and friends--I'd have to agree that the younger (under 55) immigrants are far more desirous of, er, change. The ones suffering most under the current situation are the citizens of Cuba, many of whom happen to be the relatives of the Miami folk. Hardliners never wanted to admit this, but decades later, many, many Cuban Americans are interested in the humanitarian gains that could be realized by, er, talking to the enemy, if you will. One verbally gifted candidate gets mentioned over and over.

[Corvus9]

Litbrit,

Well, it's always good to hear that the hardliners are toning down, I guess, though my (actually quite large) cynical side wonders if such invitations aren't an attempt to curry influence so as to keep Obama from doing anything they don't like to much. And it is always nice to hear the the next generation is tending to be less crazy than all the old people. Also, "Fuck it: McCain" is hilarious.

I feel like any symbolic place of the south is null at this point. If Obama wins a southern state, then, holy shit, the black won a southern state! And a Democrat at that. If he loses all of the south but wins the election, well, the country elected a black guy, whether the south likes it or not. Fuck you, The South, we're not on you anymore. Either way, a great symbolic victory. So I have no real preference one way or another concerning targeting southern states (except for Florida, whose narrow swing constituencies and power plays I am tired of seeing politicians pander to).

I am not sure how I feel about Bob Barr. I don't think Libertarians are that widespread in the South. It's more social cons down there. The libertarian minded of the Mountain West, it seems to me, are as likely to split to Obama as McCain. A truly exposed McCain should be repulsive to Libertarians (He's a social con obsessed with with applying authoritarian military discipline to public life, invading foreign countries and pursuing irresponsible government spending), so it seems to me that many libertarian types would either stay home or defect ot Obama with given no other choice. With Bob Barr on the ballot, such voters would have a more precise outlet for voicing their political principles. Hence less votes for Obama.

[litbrit]

(um, litbrit's id has been silenced, for now, and litbrit is back in the driver's seat.)

[litbrit's id]

That's what she thinks...

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

I agree that it's unlikely, Stephen. But you were talking about the "best possible result". And if you want to spite Jefferson Davis, the best result is for his part of the country to piss on his grave.

If there's such a thing as liberal eschatology, it involves our enemies' descendents regarding us as heroes and despising their vicious forefathers. That's what final victory looks like.

[low-tech cyclist]

except VA and FL, but those two don't really belong to the CSA anymore.

Maybe not in their entirety, but there's still a lot of CSA in both states - maybe more in FL these days. I'm from one, my wife's from the other.

[BJ]

I'd still like to see what Jim Webb's name on the ballot would do. Maybe not entirely fair for a Virginia poll, but he seems the most likely to help Obama with that particular group.

[Sir Charles]

Do not sell the Old Dominion short in terms of its CSA roots. I have six or seven clients between Richmond, Roanoke and Norfolk and there are still a lot of old school attitudes. The entire drive from DC to Richmond is one Civil War battle field after another -- and people haven't entirely forgotten. You realize this when you drive past the "Stonewall Jackson Shrine" off of I-95.

Having said that, the Northern Virginia suburbs of DC have grown like a weed, are diverse and liberal to moderate and have given us Warner, Kaine and Webb. I think Obama can really compete there. Moreover, these are places where traffic problems and overcrowded schools are driving home the limitations of the "no new taxes" philosphy. I think Loudon and Prince William counties in Virginia -- two DC exurbs -- may give an extremely good reading on what kind of election night we'll be having.

I also think he can and needs to compete in FLA -- sorry Corvus, but we can't consign the fourth largest state in the country to oblivion.

One of the things that I anticipate being significant in this election is changing attitudes among younger Cubans, who I think realize that 50 years of embargoing Cuba have simply not worked. I am naive enough to think that it may have dawned on people that a new approach might be warranted.

[Corvus9]

"sorry Corvus, but we can't consign the fourth largest state in the country to oblivion."

Well, yes, but, but.. it would feel so satisfying.

But hey, haven't the republicans basically consigned the first largest state to oblivion? Why can't we consign the measly fourth largest? And it will be satisfying.

Join me, Sir Charles. It is the only way. (kaaaa--purrrr).

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

My view is that no oblivion-consigning of moderately swingy states is appropriate until about a week after the convention, or some similarly appropriate Festival of Intra-Party Healing.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

Sorry no can do -- but Texas -- we can write that mess off -- and it's the second biggest state.

You have to remember that once upon a time California was considered very safe Republican territory in presidential elections -- unassailable even. Then Governor Pete Wilson used proposition 187 as a wedge issue to help himself win election one last time -- it was a Lou Dobbs style attack on illegals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187_(1994)

Since then, the only time a Republican has prevailed state wide in California for president, senator or governor has been Schwartzenegger.

The moral of the story -- these things are more dynamic than many imagine. So we need to fight on for Florida --for the sake of ourselves, litbrit, South Beach and Key West.

[Joe Klein's conscience]

Sir Charles:
And even The Terminator's original win was a special case because of the recall(and him being a movie star).

[Sir Charles]

Ah-nold is indeed sui generis.

[Scott K]

I happen to live in the South (Tennessee to be specific) though I grew up in Milwaukee. I think that in some ways the South is changing, albeit mainly in the urban areas, by the migration of Yankee implants southwards. Also, the Southern states are not exactly homogeneous. The Deep South states are more so, but even then, there are pockets. With Tennessee specifically, the western part of the state (Memphis and the vicinity) is pretty strongly Democratic. Nashville and some of the bordering counties, as well. Chattanooga has been moving towards the (D) column. The main issue is that just about the whole eastern part of the state is very strongly Republican and when you combine that with the rural areas spotted around the western part of the state, you wind up with a state that tends to lean pretty heavily towards the Republicans. I suspect something similar may be true for some of the other border Southern states. It may be trending towards parity, especially given the (D) progress on a local and state level.

[Corvus9]

Sigh, well, I suppose if we have to write off the second largest, we will just have to keep playing for the fourth largest.

But can we just put it off until after the election? Think of it as, not doing your homework on time. I am sure nothing bad can come of putting off trying to appeal to Florida!

In all seriousness, though, I think it would be a good idea to try to appeal to other 2004 states that equal up to Florida, this election especially. If I remember the last Booman Tribune post on this issue, there are a lot of "red" states where Obama is polling better against McCain than he is in Florida. It might be easier to work at winning those states than at making up the difference in Florida, I think, especially with Hillary poisoning the waters down there by portraying Obama's stance on the delegates into the equivalent of Jim Crow or whatever.

On the other hand, considering that Florida is probably point one for temporary pro-Hillary backlash against the Democratic party, it's quite possible that after Hillary has really left the building Obama will quite quickly make up all of that difference.

[Corvus9]

Scott K, isn't that true of just about every state though? There is some really democratic regions, many of them growing through urbanization, plus a lot of rural areas that lean republican. Where a state falls is mostly a product of the ratio of rural to urban areas. the more urban, the more democratic. Illinois is actually pretty rural—heck, Little Eqypt is about as Southern as any part of the South—but it has Chicago. Thus, you get Durbin and Obama. (Fitzgerald only won a term because of Mosely-Braun's implosion. Don't compliment dictators.)

Actually, I think the severity of this split has been exacerbated by the ascendancy of the DLC in the party, and is one of the things that I hope the MUP That Lives In My Head rubs a soothing Gilead Balm on. While I don't think the party needs to win back working class whites specifically, it does need to win back the working class that doesn't have other issues to vote D. on (which bascially means W.C. whites). The DLC's pro-corporate bent has basically eliminated any reason for (white) workers to vote D. If the Dems won't work to further the causes of Labor, why would Labor bother to vote for them?

[Sir Charles]

Scott,

I am for a many state strategy -- I think we ought to try and put as many places in play as possible.

And yes, Corvus, we need to court working class whites --not in a patronizing "watch me shoot this bowling ball while drinking a shot of Jack fashion" but by engaging in a meaningfully progressive and populist economics -- strangely enough, it's a message that will also appeal to blacks and hispanics.

My credo for the campaign - "ignore the media -- engage in class warfare."

[Scott K]

Corvus, to some extent, I agree with you. But thinking of Democratic regions as being predominantly urban areas is oversimplifying... I mean, Vermont is pretty safely Democratic, but the largest city (town?) in the state is Burlington with a staggering total of 40,000 people. There are also states in the West that appear potentially competitive that, in terms of urban-rural composition, aren't that much different from other states that aren't competitive. You present the example of Illinois, and it is certainly true that Cook County was the only area that broke strongly for Kerry in 2004, but at least half of the rest of the state was only slightly leaning one way or the other (within 10% or so). You need SOME support outside the cities! And then when it comes to Tennessee, Knoxville has been voting solidly red, which pretty much cements Tennessee as a "red state" (the county where Chattanooga is voted ever-so-slightly pink in 2004, but the last mayoral election came down to two Democratic candidates, with the Republicans essentially relegated to third-party status). If only someone could figure out how to flip Knoxville, then presto, instant swing state. That's something you can mostly say about the border states. Most of them were within 15 points or so in 2004, so in this environment, perhaps they could be within reach... the bigger the victory margin in November, the bigger the perceived mandate, the more Republicans vomiting in their toilets... :-)

[Scott K]

by engaging in a meaningfully progressive and populist economics

Amen to that... the Dem strategy has been pathetic in trying to appeal to the "working class whites" on the battleground of cultural issues. But this election may not be as much about these type of issues... thank goodness. Using progressive and populist economics should put a lot of states into play...

[Corvus9]

"ignore the media -- engage in class warfare."

Fuck. Yeah.

Scott K, Let me just say that in no way was I implying that it would be good to ignore the rural areas. We need active engagement there, totally.

Also, Illinois is a bad example of a state being competitive in rural areas. The Illinois Republican party basically spent all of 2004 self destructing. the previous Republican governor, Ryan, was about to go to jail, thanks to the other Fitzgerald. Everyone knew it, and the Machine was going down with him. Then there was the other Ryan scandal, involving 7 of 9 and sex shops, and Alan Keyes, and Obama running for senate, and getting 70% of the vote. I think it's actually quite possible that Obama had an upticket effect. In short, the Illinois republican party spent the whole year convincing voters they were criminals and semi-abusive sex fiends, a sign of what was to come on the national level. It's no surprise things were close all over in Illinois that
year.

Anyways, I think it is worth pointing out that while the urban/rural divide is roughly true, it is by no means universal. It also falls apart to to regional cultural differences. Vermont is in New England, which is a very liberal region. Tennessee? The South. Lot's of conservative cultural tropes. Racism, yes, but also social conservatism, religious evangelism. The West, like Montana and the Dakotas, is more of a small government, libertarian, militia nut kind of conservative culture. Different cultures color the general rule, sometimes to the point of changing the shade entirely.

[Corvus9]

Also, Sir Charles, I would like to point out that Dems should not really work to appeal to working class whites themselves. Dems should just try to appeal to the working class, period, and wait for the white ones to come along. (Well, some rhetoric pointing out that white workers are being manipulated by the overclass might be helpful, although not in such words, because that's pinko talk. Obama's discussion of the real causes of the "middle class squeeze" in "A More Perfect Union" were an excellent example of how to do this, I think. Bittergate, not as much.)

So yeah. Class warfare. But you know, happy, positive, bipartisan class warfare!

[Crissa]

Look, if they're Democrats, the presupposition is that they'll vote for the nominee.

If you want to say that Democrats are racist and that doesn't matter...

Can either candidate beat McCain without the other's votes?

'Cause I'm gonna say... Probably not.

[Scott K]

Corvus, I think that we're essentially on the same page. I don't hold any illusions that the Bible-thumpers around here are going to suddenly start voting Democratic, and I have no desire to see the Democratic Party make efforts to tailor a message that appeals to them. Any such effort would cause me to seriously consider filing an entry form for the national competition in projectile vomiting.

At the same time, ignoring certain areas simply because they are a tougher sell is not the route to a lasting progressive agenda... it's just a way to win this election and maybe the next one. With Ford's campaign for the Senate in 2006, it was a very DLC-type campaign and I don't think that he gave anyone a real reason to vote for him, yet just a little less than half the state voted against Corker. Someone more in the Tester mold could very well have given the Democrats a majority without Lieberman... now that would have been sweet...

[Corvus9]

Scott,

Indeed, I don't think there is actually any daylight on this issue between us. Pandering on social issues to conservative workers is in a sense just as bad as pandering on economic issues to pro-corporate pro-business types. It weakens the support of other coalitions, and results in a party that is less distinct from the opposition. It also happens to, from the perspective of a progressive/liberal, weaken your moral standing and make you part of the problem.

A part of me is glad that Ford lost. Short term, yes, it was bad, making Lieberman essential to the maintenance of a majority, but Ford is such an egregious DLC hack, and an idiot to boot, I think as a long-term goal it is necessary to see him and his ilk phased out of the democratic party. I think it is actually possible in the post-Bush era to form a ruling coalition based on a combination of socially progressive legislation and economic populism. At this point I think it's basically a question of massaging the message. Don't paint people who disagree with you on social issues as evil (a big problem with prog blogs, if you ask me, and not really helpful), demonize the shit out of CEOs (but politely), and watch the small donor money flow like sweet sweet water from a natural spring.

[Sir Charles]

But Corvus -- think of the progress -- yes Ford is a DLC hack and an idiot to boot -- but he's a Black DLC hack. :-)

I get the sense he is gunning to get a show on MSNBC.

I agree on the campaign tactics as well -- on the social issues I would try to appeal to notions of freedom, autonomy and tolerance -- and tweak the hypocrites -- but not belittle our opponents.

However, I emphatically reserve the right to mock those who disagree with me on social issues on the blog -- it's just too damn much fun.

[Scott K]

So, we're agreed... we'll snicker about massive oiled-up gay orgies in the National Mall around here, but not actually try to push for laws allowing it, eh?

[Sir Charles]

Well -- we won't push for laws mandating it.

Mmmmmmmm - man dating.

[Corvus9]

Reminds me of what I thought when I first saw Ellen on a credit card commercial:

"Wow, evil corporations now feel it is allowable to have open lesbians shill for credits cards now, pushing the American people even farther into debt. Look how far we've come."

"If you do a commercial, you are off the artistic role call. End of fucking story." —Bill Hicks

[Crissa]

You know what's even more wrong with this post?

Even if you take the number of Clinton's voters who said race mattered, and double it, she still won.

Why can't you look at perhaps there's a platform difference?

[Sir Charles]

Crissa,

I don't know that Nick is being so reductive with respect Clinton's victory -- I think he is simply noting that for Obama it is going to be tough sledding in that region in te general election.

I think that in addition to race, there are many working people for whom the 1990s were a pretty good decade and they credit Bill Clinton, and by extension, Hillary, with their good fortune. Not to sound like Thomas Friedman, but the other day I took a lengthy cab ride and talked a great deal to the driver -- an Ethiopian immigrant who backed Obama -- but he referred on several different occasions to "Clinton Times" in contract to Bush times with the explicity connection that for him these were much better and easier years. I think there is a lot of this visceral feeling among people for whom the price of gas and the price of food mean an awful lot about the lives that they are able to live.

[Crissa]

And those times weren't so great for some areas, such as the far-west, where Obama is beating Clinton in the polls.

I still think it's a matter of policy. Obama talks a great game, but he didn't have much time to make himself different than Clinton in the Senate - and he didn't do anything to be different than her.

And personally, I'm annoyed when I hear his great words and then go and see his policy suggestions and find them weaker than Clinton's. That pisses me off.

I don't know what that doesn't piss off more of these progressives, who are always on about DINOs... Instead they tar and feather Clinton as being like McCain while sparing the same brush for Obama being like the parts of Clinton they don't like.

It really chafes.

[Crissa]

err, 'why that', not 'what that'.

[Sir Charles]

Crissa,

I can only speak for this liberal -- I think Obama got the nod from me (intially an Edwards guy) due to his undeniable personal gifts, his opposition to the Iraq war, his rejection of the reflexive need to be "tough" in foreign policy and the fact he typically eschews attacking others from the right, a troubling staple of both Clintons. In all of these areas I found Clinton to be inferior -- I've also been unccomfortable with her association with Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe, two of the biggest corporate whores in the universe. The foreign policy difference between the two of them, at least in terms of tone and instinct, are reason enough to me to choose him over her.

Finally, I have no desire to replay the Clinton wars of the 1990s -- I think it would leave the Dems starting from a bad place from the get go.

You may not agree with my analysis or where I find the scales tipped, but I hope that you will at least credit me and others with coming to these conclusions in good faith, just as I would do the same with respect to your support of her.

[Corvus9]

Crissa,

In addition to all of Sir Charles' excellent reasons for supporting Barack Obama, all of which I agree with, right down to calling Penn and McAuliffe "corporate whores" (actually the best part), I would also like to point that Barack Obama has never promoted either legislation or Constitutional Amendments banning Flag Burning, but opposed such initiatives, and has neither accused young Americans such as myself of thinking that "work is a four letter word" or lambasted the violence in popular videogames.

While these issues are not as substantial or consequential as any of the items Sir Charles cataloged above, I think that they are clear-cut examples of demagoguery. Clinton is appealing to the worst, irrational, yet widespread strains in American opinion: anti-free speech sentiment and conservative curmudgeonery. I find the anti-flag burning rhetoric particularly egregious, as it seems to me to be the first step a cultural move towards loyalty pledges and limits on free speech, a process which I think would invariably limit the formation of new liberal forms of thought. Tkaen with Clintons penchant for propagating obvious falsehoods, such as that she never supported NAFTA* and repeatedly telling the her made up story about arriving at Tuzla, I think Clinton has shown a clear penchant to engage in unprincipled behavior as a means of fortifying and increasing her own political power and influence. She is willing to manipulate the public to win. Such a behavior is, I think both tempermentally unfit for the power of the presidency and dangerous regardless of where its practitioners reside in society. It also shows that she is perfectly willing to sell out unpopular constituencies, particularly left constituencies (we ACLU loving free speech fans).

In short, Hillary Clinton has shown to have every intention that, regardless of how much she is preferable to a Republican, she has no interest in the support of a person like me.

*AH, I almost forgot about NAFTA. I really fucking hate NAFTA. In fact, I kind of despise everyone involved in it, and would like nothing more than to see all of them run out of the Democratic party. The sooner the better. I will always support the less pro-NAFTA candidate in any race. Hence, Hillary has always in fact been last choice for me for the nomination. No other Democratic candidate has hands as dirty with it as she has.

[Sir Charles]

By the way, when I say that Terry McAuliffe is a corporate whore, it is not simply my usual dyspeptic hyperbole. I mean to say that he probably should have had his ass sent to jail for some of his practices.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=18195

As someone who practices law in areas where McAuliffe has enriched himself, I have developed an incredibly low opinion of him.