If you have "no place to go," come here!

Blowback Ahead?

BDBlue's picture

Scary smart Anglachel, again:

In short, Obama, taken here as an exemplar of the liberal elite, is simply wrong in his estimation of the core Democratic constituency. They did not want what he was offering because they did not see themselves as the ones who needed to be changed, and they have consistently given their votes to the person who has focused on their explicit economic needs and their desire to be safe in an unsettled world while being respectful of them as people.

The political problem, the way in which a faultline is turning into a fissure, is in Obama's response to not getting these votes. When Hillary did not win their votes, as in Wisconsin, she did not turn around and revile them as "Archie Bunkers" or as "bitter". I have never heard a word from her or her campaign calling AA voters racists for giving their votes to Obama. She simply does not denigrate the voters. The Obama campaign response to losing New Hampshire was to instantly accuse working class residents of being closet racists and this toxic and grievously insulting charge continues to this day. The more his campaign trumpets this accusation, the greater the resistence to his campaign, which then pumps up its rhetoric, which offends more people, etc.

Where is this going to go? First off, should Obama be the nominee, he can kiss the general election goodbye... I think you see a significant section of the working class simply turn away from participation, depressing turn out and costing the party electoral success. They will stay away until the party offers them candidates who talk to their material interests instead of to the leadership's fantasy of being modern day Solons.

There is also the case that the demographics of the left are changing far more rapidly than the elite narrative, which appears to be permanently stuck in 1980. College educated voters are increasingly female because college graduates are increasingly female. Running campaigns that piss on strong women candidates, even those of us who should be Obama swooners, ain't going to hack it. Conversely, this means a larger portion of the male population will not be college educated, increasing the ranks of the dreaded Bunkers and Bubbas. The party needs to figure out how to make itself relevant to the intrests of both these groups. In all classes, the population is incresingly Latino and Asian, decreasing both black and white percentages. Speaking about racism as though there are only two colors will not be relevant to these groups.

The problem in this election is the tunnel vision of the party elite who insist on demonizing wide swaths of Democratic Party voters based on biases that simply do not reflect demographic or political reality. There will be a long-term political price to pay for insisting that working class voters don't have concrete interests, but are only voting out of bigotry. Obama will pay his part of that price soon, whether in the primaries or in the general. The party will be paying for years.

Read the entire thing.

I found her point about the changing demographics particularly interesting. Despite Obama claiming to be the candidate of the future, he doesn't seem to have focused nearly as much on the changing demographics of the country. Hillary is the candidate of the hispanic (particularly Mexican and Puerto Rican Americans) and Asian voters. She is also the candidate whose staff is by far the most diverse:

Among the major Dem and GOP candidates, Clinton is the only one with a majority of women in her staff; she also has the lowest percentage of white staff members. Other than Maggie Williams, her African-American campaign manager who replaced her Latina manager, Patti Solis Doyle, the major names associated with the Clinton campaign are of white men (Garin, Wolfson, Penn). Yet, her staff is less than 40% white, and around 20% Asian and Black (and just under 20% Latino). Obama's campaign, in contrast, is 20% female, and almost 60% white, with no AAPI representation at all.

So while Obama claims to be the candidate of tomorrow, Clinton's campaign looks much more like the future. In a lot of way, Obama's campaign looks like the past.

Indeed, look at how he's played the race card, as if there are only two sides to it. I wonder what some of the hispanic Super Delegates think about Clyburn's and Lacy's recent stirrings. In the 2000 census, hispanics and African Americans both accounted for around 12% of the population (with Mexican Americans alone accounting for more than 7%). And while Clinton isn't hispanic, she has been the overwhelming choice among, at least, Mexican Americans. For that matter, I wonder how Asian Americans feel. I know that one of the reasons they went so heavily for Clinton out here in California is that they felt ignored by the Obama campaign.

It's all very interesting.

No votes yet


MOBlue's picture
Submitted by MOBlue on

Divide the party in half and insult all the voters who haven't voted for you to win them to your side.

Obama must think Clinton voters are like DKos and MoveOn.

Imelda Blahnik's picture
Submitted by Imelda Blahnik on

for some perverse reason I just decided to take a peek at DKos, for the first time in weeks. Read some of the comments on a DHinMI thread about how "Appalachia has an Obama problem" (note - it's Appalachia's problem. Not Obama's).

Owwww! The Stupid!!! It Burns!!!!

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

or are they all coming unhinged? Campaign and supporters alike?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

It's really weird. He's still the frontrunner and has a decent chance of winning Indiana and will definitely win NC, but they're acting as though he's already lost Indiana. This is what I thought we might be seeing on May 7th if Hillary had a good night on May 6.

It's not so much the on-line folks craziness as that they seem to be reacting to the craziness coming from the Obama campaign and his surrogates. The spinning has been incredibly and the race stuff seems unnecessary. He's going to get the black vote and he might close this thing out yet, why the implied blackmail. It makes him seem so much weaker than he otherwise would.

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

You hit the nail on the head with that. I'd add they're acting like they are losing much more than just Indiana. I don't think Clinton will win NC (I hope she does) but something is definitely wrong with the way they're all behaving. Maybe, the campaign is starting to realize that he doesn't have much chance in the general. That could explain both Axelrod's and Plouffe's recent comments. If they know --even subconsciously-- that he can't win the general then the whole point of even winning the nomination is lost and that might explain some of their more bizarre behavior and the threats.

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

agreed with blaming the voter stuff it's silly, yeah there are hillbillies in the US deal with it.
I also think that Obama's campaign manager saying essentially that they (Obama's campaign) is not worried about Hillary's voters because they are all going to vote for McCain anyway. (need to find that quote). I am going to start posting that to people who think that voting for Obama is what he wants...he expects and wants them to vote for McCain.
As far as jumping ship. What the ads in NC are doing is showing the DNC that they could lose more than the Presidential election. The RNC is going for the seats.

And by god if Obama runs against McCain they will lose seats if those ads keep running.

Kant says that not holding somebody morally culpable is treating him/her as less than fully human.

Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other,they'd be Republicans -- Will Rogers

Lost in Space's picture
Submitted by Lost in Space on

By Ploffe and Alexrod.

I have this feeling that this is not so much a surrender, but a ploy targeting the SuperDels by conflating Hillary voters with Repubs. And as such, the DEM nominee should be Obama, since Hillary's voting base is Republican. Therefore, the anomalies of TX, NV, PA, OH, FL, MI, and other traditionally DEM states are a result of Repubs and Repubs-in-Waiting.

Or, at least, that is what I'm reading this as.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

white_n_az's picture
Submitted by white_n_az on

disparage the presidency of Bill Clinton as the way to beat Hillary. It's entirely clear that they must believe that the Democrat candidate is a shoo-in and that the only victory needed was the nomination.

That they could embark on a campaign that not only divided the party now but probably will impact the party long term showed incredible ambition and their ultimate miscalculation that McCain will dominate the middle and those disaffected Democrats in the process.

haelig's picture
Submitted by haelig on

Despite Obama claiming to be the candidate of the future, he doesn’t seem to have focused nearly as much on the changing demographics of the country.

This is one of the things that irritates me about the Obama campaign: Despite his talk of change and transformation, his campaign is mired in the black-and-white coalitions of the past. He made a half-hearted effort in Texas and California by appropriating "si se puede," but otherwise he swept up the African-American community with little effort and seems to think that Asians and Latinos will follow them or the oh-so-powerful cultural arbiters that make up the white "creative class." Uh, no. Once again, he is failing adjust and with his interview on FOX news this morning, he is making it blatantly clear that he thinks moderate independents and Repubs will make up for the Democrats and potential Democrats that he's alienated.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

They really keep flogging that "Hillary is a Republican meme" like they think someone will believe it.

It's really amusing because so many of the OFB were Clinton-hating Republicans. They hated Hillary then for being too liberal, but now that the rats abandoned their sinking party boat to join our party, they accuse her of being a conservative Republican.

"Just say no to kool-aid."

Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

Obamakins live in obamakin daze,
where the fairytale dreams
fall apart at the seams
Obamakins prance an obamakin dance
tinkerbelle flitters by
they all point at the sky
Obamakins tweet obamakins song
Democracy can't get in their way
"If you only believe", obamakins bray
Obamakins spin in obamakins jewelrybox
springing to yearn
ballet dancers turn
Obamakins Hope on Obamakins change
don't think ahead
believe him instead
Obamakins cantor obamakins banter
It all goes nonstop
the weasel won't pop
Obamakins continue obamakin ways
dissing and hissing
what are we missing?

Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other,they'd be Republicans -- Will Rogers

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

all the accusations about Hillary and 2012 might just be their own plan after all for Obama.

He's lost millions of white working class voters, and is not bearing up under the finally-sorta-even press scrutiny at all. Was this his dress rehearsal for a real run later?

Did they really not expect to win this time at all and now are clearly not able to deal with it all because it was never in their plans?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"Why couldn't he? First off, the Truman contingent is already to the left of the rest of the party when it comes to economic issues, and they are looking for a candidate who will aggressively defend their economic interests. Second, the Truman contingent is actually very loyal to the party. Finally, the Truman contingent's cultural values are every bit as complex, convoluted and multi-faceted as that of the Stevensonian wing, and they are open to persuasion about adhering more to some parts of their cultural inheritance than to others. They are not open to condescension and shaming. What self-respecting adult would be?"

Far more loyal to the party than Obama himself, and proudly partisan.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

completely clueless--

""I am less familiar with some of these blue-collar voters than [Clinton]. ... They are less familiar with me than they are with her, and so we probably have to work a little bit harder," Obama said on "Fox News Sunday."

He added, "I've got to be more present. I've got to be knocking on more doors. I've got to be hitting more events. We've got to work harder."" --

They're less familiar to him, and he's less familiar with them, so he will increase his own presence among them? Not learn what they want or need or change his message to appeal to them or anything like that? He's gonna show up more in their midst as the solution?????? That'll teach him about them, or teach them about him?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Did they really not expect to win this time at all and now are clearly not able to deal with it all because it was never in their plans?

I don't think Obama even wanted to be the nominee this year -- perhaps the VP slot, but this was really about raising his profile for a future run.

There was never any plan to win in November -- he just wanted to be noticed. But like a rock singer who becomes an overnight superstar and has to isolate himself from the public, he wound up in his own hermetically sealed world surrounded by sycophants, and started believing his own publicity about what a genius he is...

BTW, the reason that the Obots are going nuts is that they know that if Obama is the nominee, he will lose -- and they are already planning on blaming Clinton. Donna Brazile has made a career out of "blaming the Clintons" and not accepting responsibility for her own stupidity which resulted in Gore's loss.