Clinton's Rural Advantage

by TexasDarlin, Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM EST

Shepherdstown, W. Va.

While Barack Obama is busy ordering champagne for his premature victory party on May 20th, Hillary Clinton is pounding the West Virginia trail to get-out-the-vote in Tuesday's primary.

By all accounts Clinton will enjoy a double-digit win in West Virginia, followed by another in Kentucky one week later. And even though Obama, his surrogates, and pundit parrots are furiously pre-spinning his losses in these two states by suggesting that they don't really matter -- West Virginia and Kentucky could end up being game-changers for Clinton. Here's why:

Rural America can determine who becomes the next President. And West Virginia and Kentucky show off Clinton's commanding rural advantage.

But they aren't the only ones. Check out the county-by-county results from four very close contests (Clinton is red; Obama, green):

Missouri (Obama won by 1.3%):

New Mexico (Clinton won by 1%):

Texas (Clinton won by 3.5%):

Indiana (Clinton won by 2%)

As you can see, Clinton's base covers a broader geographic region, nearly a sweep of counties.  Although population counts may be relatively equal between the red and green areas -- these maps illustrate how well she consistently performs in rural America.

Hillary has hit her stride in small towns and rural communities across the country, connecting with working class voters with a populist appeal reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy. For those who have followed Hillary Clinton's life and career, we know it's genuine. You can see the joy on her face when she's working the rope line in town squares, even at the end of a 16-hour day. Of course Obama's "bitter" moment aided her, but cinching this demographic segment is a crucial achievement that Clinton has earned for the Democrats. And, you might say...one benefit of this extended primary season that some party members are anxious to end.

A Democratic pollster for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News said it well:

Rural and small-town voters are the best indicators of whether a candidate is connecting with the values of Middle America. "They are America.  Too often Democrats end up with candidates who can speak only to metro America. If you can speak to [rural and small-town America], then you relate to the rest of America."

Pay attention, folks. These are General Election swing voters needed to reach 270 electoral votes.

Swing voters.

And no one understands that better than the superdelegates, many of whom rely on these same voters for their own re-elections.

So Barack Obama might think twice about dismissing West Virginia and Kentucky, even if he calculates that their votes and delegates are inconsequential to the nomination. The hard-working people of Appalachia and bluegrass country represent a nationwide constituency capable of delivering the White House in November. And for Clinton, they will put her within striking distance of a popular vote lead.

Note: Maps and election results from uselectionatlas


Cross posted at texasdarlin.

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved.
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign




Tags: hillary clinton, small towns, rural, communities, popular vote, superdelegates, blue collar, working class, democrats, convention, west virginia, kentucky, primaries, obama, campaigning (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 276 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (1.95 / 21)

Hillary Clinton can reach 270 Electoral Votes with the help of her broad coalition that includes Rural America.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:51:29 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Hey Texas. Are you a rural voter? You seem to care about this population so much, will you help the democratic bring in the vote here when the democratic nominee takes on McCain?


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

See downthread, was born and rasied in a rural small town.

Um...just an idea -- focus on the issues raised in the diary rather than me...?

I'm flattered, and all, but I'm not the one running for POTUS.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:38:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

I was born and raised in a small rural town, and currently live in a small town.

Why you care about where I live, though, seems like misplaced interest.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Hey "duende", are you a ?

Cheers!


by Caldonia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Aren't we all?

Are you? Any clues to the hand inside the sock. My clue has a BRITish connection. What's your excuse?


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 5)

Whomever is nominated, we need to put the Democratic coalition based on working class voters of all races, genders, and ethnicities back together.  That actually matters more than the identity of the nominee to me.  That is, beating McCain is more important than either Obama or Clinton.

1/2 of the Democratic coalition will not do it.  We need the urban and the rural; men and women; blacks and whites; Hispanics and Anglos; Asian Americans, European Americans, African Americans, gay and straight.  The common denominator holding together the Democratic coalition is a desire for fairness, an end to the great economic inequality that has been growing.  The Democratic party is the party of working people.


by TomP on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 3)

Tom is precisely right. You're breaking this down into an us-versus-them between Obama and Clinton on who's got the neatest "coalition", and what's more important.

I say to you something I think many people are missing- every single voter is important.

I don't care if they voted for George Bush twice, have eighteen American flags, play that Toby Keith 9/11 song nonstop, listen to Rush Limbaugh only when they're not watching Fox News, and picket abortion clinics in their spare time. We need to reach out to them, at the very least. We need to let everyone know that they are important parts of our coalition, no matter their background, race, color, creed, social status, income, etc.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 3)

"I say to you something I think many people are missing- every single voter is important."

Unless they live in Florida or Michigan....

Unless they fall late in the cycle after many many many Obama supporters have called for Hillary to drop out of the race...

Unless they live in Texas where the voters clearly voted for Hillary but Obama got more delegates...

The new found belief in Democracy from Obama supporters is not real.


by DTaylor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 2)

I agree, but after sentiments like Obama's 'religion, guns, and bitterness' comment, underscored by Donna Brazile's 'we don't need them' comment, if Democrats don't ultimately coalesce, we'll know why.


by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

Donna B did not say we do not need those voters, as you well know, she said we don't have to rely on only those voters.  See the difference?


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

We don't need them.

We don't have to rely on them.

Same difference.


by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 3)

Dude how dare you trust your own eyes and ears.

She didn't say that.

You must be bitter.

No one in the Obama camp pretending to be neutral could ever say anything intended to sway voters for Obama.

Right Dean?
Right Pelosi?
Right Donna?


by DTaylor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:20:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Nope. Not the same difference at all


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

I repeat, "we don't have to rely on ONLY those voters".  Do you really not see the difference, or do you need help with comprehension?


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:28:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Her words, with added context: (none / 0)

"Paul, you're looking at the old coalition.. and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics."


by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her words, with added context: (none / 0)

So if she said that we don't have to rely on only AA support, would that mean that she no longer wants them in the party? That would not be correct, and you know it.


by zep93 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm just repeating what she said (none / 0)

The fact of the matter is she didn't say "we don't have to rely on only AA support", for obvious reasons, which only serves to underscore my point regarding the constituencies she did single out, and you know it :)


by phoenixdreamz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:47:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 3)

That's dependent on who's running. If it's Obama expect 60%+ of gay and lesbian voters to stay home. You can also count out those millions of dollars that wealthy gay and lesbians give to the DNC. There's been some growing discontent within the community made worse recently by comments made by Donna Brazile and several Congressional Black Caucus members. The cats out of the bag regarding the lack of support on behalf of the DNC in defeating ballot measures. There is also the troubling problem of Howard Dean recently firing two of the gay and lesbian outreach liaisons because they could not control the gay press. Which has been none to complimentary towards the DNC lately and with good reason. There should be no place for this in the DNC but alas here is where we are.


by Iceblinkjm on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Really - got any poll data for that, or are you just making stuff up?


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:13:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Wow, are you serious?  My experience with gay and lesbian voters isn't vast, but around here (Seattle) I've seen a huge amount of enthusiasm for Obama, and no intention whatsoever of sitting out the election.  Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people!

One of the interesting things I've found about this site is that what people are reporting voters think and feel is so often so diametrically opposed to what I see in my daily life, where I know both Obama and Hillary supporters well, and live in a city but have deep and continuing ties in rural areas.  I suppose it could be that as a pretty blue state, people aren't quite so rabid about their positions here, but it does strike me as strange how different life seems to be in other communities.  I've never once, for example, met a single Democrat on either side threatening to vote for McCain - it would never cross most regular people's minds to vote against their own interests in that way after we've all suffered under 8 years of Bush.


by travelerkaty on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well sure but (2.00 / 1)

these rural voters picked Clinton over Obama in a primary.  It does not follow they will pick McCain over Obama in the general.

Say, for example, most of them are hard-left on economic issues and they found Clinton's more progressive.  If they're only voting their pocketbook, they're all likely to go for Obama anyway since he's better than McCain.  Add Obama's appeal to independants and Republicans, and he might well do better in those areas then Clinton would have.

I'm not saying that's especially likely.  I'm saying that losing any demographic in a primary does not translate to losing it in the general.


by corph on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well sure but (none / 0)

Yeah, it's so easy for Obama to do better than Hillary among her very own supporters than she would his supporters. Boy, you Obama folks are really driving it hard--let up a bit and get some sleep.


by Check077 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They're Democrats, no? (2.00 / 1)

Hillary doesn't own these people (and I'm quite well-rested, thank you).

Bush won Iowa in the 2000 primaries, but lost NH.  In the general, he lost Iowa and won NH, both by very close margins.  Correlations between primary and general support are weak at best.

Hillary supporters, wherever they are, can vote for Obama or McCain in the general, or stay home.  I don't know for sure what they'll do, but neither do you.  I simply try not to cloak my ignorance in arrogant snark.


by corph on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

None of this matters for the primary. Obama has both the super delegate, pledged delegate, and popular vote lead.


by Cheebs on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:56:50 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

I agree, it's a pointless argument for the primary.

But it does show that Obama should focus on winning over those voters in the general.


by emptythreatsfarm on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

He will. Look how amazing he performed in the primary when no one expected him to win. His team knows what they are doing. I have no worries.


by Cheebs on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:59:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 9)

Yeah except Hillary will probably take the lead in the popular vote when the primaries are over in June.

But keep telling youself its over - celebrate while work to get as many of those votes for Hillary as we possibly can :)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 4)

Except the contest is not for the popular vote; it's for delegates.  Otherwise, each candidate's strategy would be different.  Nobody would invest time and money in the caucus states or smaller states like IA and NH.

Many times a baseball team has more hits and commits fewer errors, yet loses on a technicality called runs scored.  Obviously, if the winner of the game were determined by number of hits less number of errors committed, then coaches wouldn't advise the ninth batter to bunt after the leadoff eigth batter singled or doubled since a sacrifice bunt wouldn't help the team win.

Alegre, I appreciate your enthusiasm for Sen. Clinton.  I started out being for her candidacy over Sen. Obama's, and still believe as an actuary her health care plan with mandates is superior to Sen. Obama's.  I very much admire Sen. Clinton, and believe she is one of the best members of the Senate.  She just ran into a truly exceptional candidate named Barack Obama, who has the potential to transform the political landscape for the better.


by Brad G on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:13:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Is this using the same math that you used in your hysterically funny diary a couple of months ago where you proved Hillary would win the pledged delegate race with 20% wins in the remaining primaries?  Come on - show us the figures, we're dying to know how she wins.


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

So?  The DEM nominee is chosen by pledged delegates assigned by county.  
He won more.  
'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 6)

So, all you are concerned about is getting the nomination?  To hell with these voters who can actually win the WH for the Democrats?  That's pretty short-sighted, not to mention a loser strategy.


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

This would be far more persuasive if you actually had some data on how rural voters voted in past elections as compared to voters elsewhere and how their margins mattered to the overall outcome.

Also, maybe you could tell people what percentage of the population lives in rural areas in the US and in key states and how this has changed over time.

Without such information, the diary is quite thin in its analysis and ultimately unpersuasive.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

And, of course, you've lumped together all rural areas. There's some good points about this aspect in posts below.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:08:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 4)

McMonDukakaKerry would agree!  :)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, yes they would (2.00 / 1)

and thats why voters choose someone more electable - Obama.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 2)

I know you love to keep spouting off your "He Can't Win" meme as often as possible.  But, it really doesn't make any sense.  How can Hillary be a more viable candidate in the GE when she can't even win the Democratic primary?  It doesn't make sense.

Obviously Obama is more popular with Democrats, because he is winning every conceivable metric.  Clinton is also extremely hated by Republicans, so you can't really expect her to pick up many GOP votes in the GE.  Clinton's polling numbers with independents are also quite poor.  Not to mention the polls showing Hillary has net unfavorable/untrustworthy ratings.

That being said, what the hell are you basing your argument on?  


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

IF all of the state had voted primaries, Obama would not have the delegate lead that he enjoys now--nor the popular vote count (even while throwing Florida and Michigan out). We thankfully have the state of Washington to use as a point of reference in this regard.


by Check077 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

IF horses were wishes, then beggars would ride.  You can dream up all the hypothetical IFS as much as you want, but that doesn't make them true.  Using one state's results to extrapolate results for other states doesn't really make any sense.

Also, what does that say about your candidate's statement that she'll be "ready from day one."  She wasn't even ready for the primary season!  As much as Clinton loves to whine about her constituencies not being able to participate in caucuses, that's not why she lost.  She lost because caucuses are all about organization, organization that Obama had and she didn't.

You're telling me Hillary would make a better President when she can't even run her campaign competently?  The fact that she surrounded herself with incompetent loyalists instead of people who were actually experienced tells me all I need to know.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

I would agree that Washington's margin wouldn't have been as great as it was in the caucuses, but the fact is that we don't really know what the margin would be.  Many, many people, myself and my family included, did not vote in the WA primary because it was considered to be a waste of time and we had already had our voices heard in the nomination selection.  


by travelerkaty on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 2)

Except, how can a candidate say he or she is the best candidate to win the general election if the nominee -- with all the advantages of name recognition, etc. -- can't win a majority of the pledged delegates in their party's nomination?


by Brad G on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:15:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

So let me get this straight - you are showing your concern for getting a Dem in the White House by tearing down the presumptive nominee and encouraging/chumming with people who are threatening to sit out the race or vote for McCain? That's a strange November strategy.
John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

hey IF HILLARY said OBAMA can Beat MCCAIN (see last debate) then OBAMA can beat MCCain so we can't lose


John McCain's pick-up line is, 'Did you know that 150 is the new 130?'"
by wellinformed on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell me (none / 0)

What will you and Alegre do when this is all over?  


by LtWorf on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

I mean, who really needs elections anyways. Why even have them? Let's decide a year in advance who we feel is most electable and forget about primaries. What a waste of money for all these elections.


by zep93 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 8)

Hey SUPERS - listen up!


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (1.77 / 9)

They aren't listening to you.


by Cheebs on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

They are listening to this arguement.  Obama just picked up another Super today!  What is that now a lead of 5!?!?!?!?!?!

Since in the last couple of weeks it looks like we added enough Supers equal the TOTAL amount of delegates from W Virginia, so yes the Supers are listening


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

i can't believe someone troll rated you for this comment.

theresa, be a big girl and apologize.


by citizendave on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

stop yelling! (2.00 / 2)


by citizendave on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 2)

They're listening.  And are starting to switch from Clinton to Obama in order to unify the party.


by neonplaque on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 3)

Listen to what?

We don't pick our candidates based on the winner in the "acreage owned" category.  Or is this the new goal post now?

See those green areas?  Million live there. All that red?  The population is low...

This is as silly as the red/blue counties maps that people were shoing after the last presidential election.  It was silly when the Republicans did it to show their support, and it's just as silly now!


by FlashStash on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 5)

The DNC are hell bent on losing another election.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

No, they are just reinforcing the pledged delegate winner. Which is no surprise. Supers are too chicken to not follow the herd. Which is why they likely will be removed for 2012.


by Cheebs on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:00:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Well thats just dandy. Hillary won`t have to worry abut SD`s in 2012 then.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

um, she is relying on them to win now (none / 0)

cause you know thats the only way she could.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, she is relying on them to win now (none / 0)

She will pick up the pieces of BO`s failed 2008 run for the White House and bring the party back from the ashes.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:22:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, she is relying on them to win now (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/12/1051 7/9780

Please read the above link, people.


by a gunslinger on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:36:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am glad that you have a dream (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:38:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: um, she is relying on them to win now (2.00 / 2)

Tell me - if it were in your power to decide the GE, would Obama win or lose?


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

Then if Hillary wants a credible shot at the Democratic nomination in 2012, she might also want to argue in preservation of IA and NH's first-in-the-nation status and not contest punishing MI and FL for violating DNC rules.  She also might want to look more like a team player, and be more gracious of Sen. Obama rather than just try to marginalize his victory.


by Brad G on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

I would like to get rid of the IA and NH first-in-the-nation status.  It does no good, really.

We need a national primary day and not drag this nonsense out.  But the media loves it (they lie when they say they are tired) and the small states love the attention (if ever so brief).

Election Reform is in Order!


by stefystef on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 4)

The values of rural WV are not very much in touch with the values of most of America. You have extremely social conservative ideas there, including a commitment to creationism over scientific principles.  In an increasingly multi-cultural America, rural WV is in no way emblematic of the US in general.

That said, there are plenty of rural areas where Obama has done quite well, as can be seen by his excellent showing outside of the south and particularly outside of Appalachia.  The upcoming results in SD and MT will demonstrate that.

Representative Tom Allen, who is running for Senate in Maine, a state with lots of rural areas, just endorsed Obama. This superdelegate believes that Obama is in touch with what rural American needs.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST

Those are overwhelmingly Republican districts (2.00 / 2)

Sadly, if we use Hillary Clinton's own metric, whether the areas in question are likely to vote red or blue in the general election, her victories there are cancelled by the fact that they probably won't swing for her in the fall.

Just to emphasize the point, exit polling suggests that Clinton won Indiana by less than the percentage of her votes that would vote for John McCain over her.

Regardless, I'm glad Obama is not furiously contesting West Virginia.  It serves as a moral boost for Clinton, and will probably help to boost her fundraising at a time when she desperately needs money to pay off her debt.

Like it or not, Obama wins the districts that give him the most points towards victory, delegates.  This isn't a coincidence or some fluke of nature; it's called 'strategy.'

Terry McAluffe said on Meet the Press yesterday that white working class voters will rally behid Obama when he is the nominee.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

TexasDarlin will you volunteer for Obama in the fall in Texas? Polls show it might be pretty close in Texas with Obama and McCain.


by Cheebs on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:01:45 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (1.33 / 3)

I'm not sure if TD lives in TX.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Which poll?

McCain is on 52% already, both HRC, and BO are in the 30's....no chance of it becomin blue.


by Jaz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

No it's much closer - see DK for summary.


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Is this a bit selective? Aren't Iowa, Wisconsin, Vermont etc very rural states? And wasn't the rural portion of NH PRO-Obama, while the suburbs were pro Hillary.

Aren't you just confusing the Appalachian rural vote with the country at large?


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:03:12 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 2)

This was before bittergate, wright, naftagate.

His rural support since March has been in decline.


by Jaz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Well, this has not been established. It could be that what has changed are the states and the regions which held elections. SD and MT will tell us if that is so.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

BS. Get us some actual numbers. (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

From polls I've seen of Oregon, Obama does better than Clinton in rural Oregon. We'll see how it actually goes.


by letterc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 3)

I also believe, and so does everyone else, that Hillary's coalition would be "wider" than Obamas.

The fact that Hillary can swing left, if she needs is a good idea, but the Obama has a severe problem with the middle ground with his soft foreign policy,  gun, religion ideas.

It also doesn't help him the majority of AA's are supporting him. The reason he won in Iowa and the the massive upswing in White voters is because he wasn't tainted as an AA. Right now, mostly due to Wright, his AA background is a cause for concern for White voters.

Rev. Wright, small town comments has killed off Obama's ability to win "easily" come Novemeber, due to;
a) Small town comments
b) Gun Comments
c) Religion comments
d) AA being an issue/Wright/Patriotism
e) NAFTA issues.

He's really losing badly in rural areas, and no signs of it improving. This is the reason why the race between McCain-Obama has closed dramatically in the polls in the last month.

As for Florida, I cannot see him winning Florida ever. Period.


by Jaz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 1)

"The reason he won in Iowa and the the massive upswing in White voters is because he wasn't tainted as an AA."

Thanks for clarifying that there is racism in America.  That said, I hope we can all work together to work to overcome that so our Democratic nominee can win the WH.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

It was not intended as a racist comment, but that Rural america has some mistrust about an AA's especially in the South.

That said, BO line/PR about him being AA was much better. Since SC he has stopped using it.

It's not just an American problem, its the same across Europe too you know.


by Jaz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:13:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you really want to talk about NAFTA issues? (none / 0)

really? really? really?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

I'm British. It's not the same problem. It's worse and better

A) We've never had such an exceptional biracial candidate - worse

B) The history of racism here isn't vitiated by the history of slavery - better


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Pray tell what is his line/Pr about being AA?  And what is a problem in Europe?


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Same old loser strategy to try and once again go after the soughern reagan democratis. Wak up it's 2008


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Bill Clinton
by venician on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Tainted as an AA?

He IS an AA and he's also half white.

He's always going to be an African American.

So we should just nominate the white girl because Obama
is damaged goods (because he's black)?

Oregon, Montana and South Dakota is as white as you can get
and he's still up in the polls.

This is a very suspicious comment on your part.


Obama/Clark will CRUSH John McCain
by spacemanspiff on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Like I said, it's worse in the South.

The fact that race was not a problem in Iowa or NH. Heck, his line..I think it was "President for all America" or something like that was brilliant... That might be a Hillary quote, but it was a nice line whatever it was.

He has to start using it again, because right now, for "some" not all White rural voters, they are not confident in him. Essentially its a "them versus us" in some areas, in other's they just can't connect.

That said, there seems to be denial there is a racist element, or denial that BO being AA can be a negative as well as a positive.


by Jaz on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:46:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Noone is denying racism exists (except jerome!), what is being queried here is your own motives in posting comments such as "tainted as AA".


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is your argument that Democrats won't vote (none / 0)

for Obama in the GE? If not, then your point is moot.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:07:22 AM EST

rural america (2.00 / 1)

chose the last two presidents.

time to give someone else a chance.


by citizendave on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:09:30 AM EST

Re: rural america (2.00 / 2)

WTH is that sypposed to mean?  We all get a vote and we can't win without them.  Period.

You guys are so fond of pointing to "the numbers"... do the math already.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:14:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but you can't pander (none / 0)

to everyone without pleasing noone.

c'mon....is hillary ready to start suggesting that the earth is 6000 years old to get the kansas vote?


by citizendave on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rural america (2.00 / 2)

Amen. I'm a working class guy in a major metropolitan region, and I have never felt that a presidential candidate represented my community. Obama's urban background wins him my support, even though he is to the right of me on many issues. I'll take the guy who spent time actually working for the working class in the inner city over the rest of the pack.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: rural america (2.00 / 1)

thats what i'm sayin'


by citizendave on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Losing Ground Against McCain (2.00 / 4)

Well, that's what the EC counters are saying at the top of the site. Obama's now at 248 when he was at 265 yesterday. Hmm..

Huge thanks to TexasDarlin' for this diary. It is the clearest indication of Clinton's strength to date. Nothing like a few stark visuals to point out that Obama has largely gamed the system, by winning in a few high-density voting districts around the country.

I hear she has a slight chance to win in Oregon, too...in addition to winning with large majorities in West Virginia and Kentucky, and Puerto Rico.

When it all comes down to the choice--in August at the Convention--of the better candidate for the general, there's no doubt in my mind that the choice should be for Hillary Clinton.

But should the Democratic Party select the weaker candidate as their nominee, Barack Obama will have a big problem: He can't win without Seniors, Latino/Hispanic voters, women, and working class/blue collar voters. Will they turn out in large numbers for him? They sure didn't do that in the primary.

Doug Schoen has a column in WSJ about it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12105562 2112284133.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM EST

Re: Obama Losing Ground Against McCain (none / 0)

I love how winning = gamed the system.

Funny!


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:12:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Game the System" Indeed! (2.00 / 2)

Contrary to what we might think, it looks like Obama's weakness among Dems comes from people who identify themselves as liberal (he is 13% weaker in that group), so not necessarily the white blue-collar base.

http://www.campaigndiaries.com/

So, Obama doesn't win white working class voters, Seniors, women, or Hispanics, but he doesn't win "liberals" either.

Way to "game" the system if you ask me. How does this candidate equate to the Democratic Party nominee? He isn't winning ANY of the traditional Democratic Party base.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hillary might be (2.00 / 1)

the strongest "also ran" in u.s. history!


by citizendave on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will lose in November (none / 0)

all your stupid one liner will not save him.
But hey, of the SDs chose him at least you will have won the nomination.  
For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ouch! (2.00 / 1)

attack my candidate....fair game.

but my one-liners?   thats personal.

"of course you realize this means war"....bugs bunny


by citizendave on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:34:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will lose in November (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/12/1051 7/9780

Stop Attacking one another.  it only helps McCain.  


by a gunslinger on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will lose in November (none / 0)

Well do you disagree with Hillary when she says Obama will win the GE ?


John McCain's pick-up line is, 'Did you know that 150 is the new 130?'"
by wellinformed on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Losing Ground Against McCain (2.00 / 4)

On the last election night, Donna Brazile, decided but undeclared Obama supporter, told viewers on CNN, clear as day, Obama doesn't need blue collar whites or Latinos. A day or so later, I read that Ms. Brazile changed her statement. Now it seems she believes Obama doesn't need to rely on just the before-metioned groups. I guess reality sank in.
by zenful6219 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:21:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Losing Ground Against McCain (none / 0)

Hillary supporters have been twisting that comment and milking it for all it's worth. Funny how noboy but you guys can hear her saying "just". Begala was made a fool off with his absurd and pathetic comment.

Most rational people agree even if the people who inhabit the Hillary echo chambers with you would like to believe otherwise.


Obama/Clark will CRUSH John McCain
by spacemanspiff on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Losing Ground Against McCain (none / 0)

We must have been mistaken when Donna said that... it`s hard to talk with your foot in your mouth.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Losing Ground Against McCain (none / 0)

It is up to Obama and his supporters to convince Clinton supporters and voters to back him. Hell, what is this "HOLD-HIS-HAND" crap all about?  If he's as good as you say he is, let him and his campaign perform in a way that he can prove that he's the stronger candidate.

See, that's the problem that Obama supporters have: they always think that others should be obligated to take care of their responsibilities. What kind of question is it to ask Texas Darlin (or another strong Clinton supporter) whether they'll going to campaign for your guy as some kind of obligation? People always ask: What about Obama? My response to that is "what about me."

What you, or other Obama supporters, should be doing is convincing us that you can be contrite IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S OVER and ONLY then try to nudge us (Hillary supporters and voters) respectfully to consider voting for your candidate, not attempting to encroach upon our ability to think for ourselves.


by Check077 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is now losing MI (2.00 / 3)

in the polls too.  Clinton has been losing MI for months against McCain but doesn't need MI to win in November.
Obama can NOT lose MI as well as OH, Fl etc...

Right after Wright and bitter comments the poodle media kept saying those things had not hurt him, but they have and the effect has been slow and cumulative.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST

Re: Obama is now losing MI (none / 0)

Which is exactly why we saw Tarheel State voters willing to elevate Hillary Clinton to majority status.


by Brad G on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is now losing MI (none / 0)

Please.  It is a 1% margin in the latest Rasmussen poll.  

That, given the current context (McCain locked in, Obama still in primary dispute), almost assuredly means an Obama victory in November in MI.


by SKI on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 3)

Wow this is some really meaningful analysis.  You just left out one little bit of information, Republican voters.  It really doesn't matter what kind of margins Hillary carries in rural America's Democratic primaries when most of those districts are chock full of GOP voters.  The fact that she would lose to McCain 60/40 as opposed to Obama's 70/30 means nothing.  

Hillary has ZERO chance of winning over any red states because of "rural" voters.  The popular vote numbers just aren't there.  Obama's strategy of registering as many new voters as he can has a much better chance of turning red states blue.  Boost a big Southern cities voter registration by 5%, and you can gain enough votes to offset dozens of rural counties.  

I am really just not in the mood to pander to rural voters.  It's "Bubba" and the "Reagan Democrats" that abandoned the Democratic party in droves to put Bush in office.  The GOP's use of social "wedge" issues has pushed them out of the Democratic fold for good.  Why the hell should we nominate a candidate pandering to a demographic that is now firmly Republican?


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 2)

Right on belicheat! I too am convinced that the reason the dems keep losing is that they keep trying to out republican the republicans by pandering to the old 'dixiecrats'. It is far past time for the party to stop being openly dismissive of everyone who chooses to live in the city, with their constant attacks on "San Francisco" values. Listen up rural America... If Seattle, San Francisco, New York, et al. are so out of touch with 'American values', why do your children keep moving here, vowing never to return?  We are all Americans... rural and urban, and we actually share many of the same values. I am done voting for pols who swing through the city to pick up some quick cash and head out to the country the next day to demonize the same community that just filled their coffers.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:40:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Speaking only of Missouri, if Clinton were the nominee she'd probably only take the green areas too. But you can't entirely dismiss rural (or as we call them here, outstate, to reflect the glorious urban mess of Springfield) voters. As McCaskill demonstrated, you don't need to win in outstate, you just need to keep it close. Obama's win in Buchanan county is a good sign. And he's campaigning in Cape Girardeau tomorrow. McCaskill lost in 04 when she ran statewide and had to deal with the coordinated campaign and D.C. purse strings dictating an all urban strategy, but won in 06 when she insisted on pursuing a broader base of voters (think of it as the 114 county strategy). Plenty of indications that Obama knows this.


by Mobar on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:51:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (none / 0)

Thanks for explaining why Obama is there tomorrow. The national press hasn't given as good a political analysis as you just did.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Darlin? (2.00 / 1)

Why can't Hillary close the deal in the most populated counties?  You know, the green ones, where most of the people are?

Why can't she win where the people are?


by FlashStash on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:15:57 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Rural Advantage (2.00 / 2)

"And no one understands that better than the superdelegates"...

Oh, I think the supers understand reality quite well. it is just been reported 30 seconds ago, that superdel. Tom Allen(D-Maine) has just endorsed Barack. I think that should put him ahead right now or within one.

Anyway, Barack is not at all dismissing those voters. He is campaigning in WV today as a matter of fact.

As far as the GE is concerned, I wouldn't worry much. If Hillary wants to secure her future in the Democratic Party, she will campaaign vigorously for him in those rural, blue collar territories and help him win over the poorer vote. She doesn't have a choice but to do that.The Washington Post quotes two democrats publicly letting her choices be known loud and clear :"withdraw with honor and grace or lose without either, forever cementing her-their-image as selfish, indifferent to party or cause." The other democrat:.. "wait for him to blow up the party, which is unlikely given his track record or blowup the party, which party leaders are unlikely to let her do."

So yes, I think he will be fine with the rural vote.


"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale
by april34fff on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:16:50 AM EST

deny these maps at your own peril (2.00 / 7)

it is astounding to me that you obama people keep killing the messenger, instead of seeing maps like this as a key item you must address.  So instead you complain about data, past trends, and then miraculously say, "hey there are rural areas Obama gets!!!"

Well, if you think you can win this with Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, all power to you.

But if you ignore these maps, and just say that its wrong and you're not worried, then you really need to start thinking strategically.

Obama cannot win these red states.  He's going to have to do better in the swing states than winning 8 or 9 counties out of 50.  The unity candidate has so far not unified the country behind his candidacy.


by 4justice on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST

right.... (2.00 / 1)

because the data show here is absolute truth, and nothing can refute it!!! Do not dare question it!!! Accept it or die!!!


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: deny these maps at your own peril (2.00 / 1)

Given the fact that the Obama campaign has been probably the best run political campaign in American history, I have no doubt that they have a strategy to address this.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]