Old Kentucky Home

• email this story
• read comments (29)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

MSNBC Kentucky exit polls from yesterday, passed along by Mark Halperin's The Page: 78% of Clinton's supporters with were 65 and older. 78% were described as "rural whites." 74% were described as "non-college-educated whites." 69% were described as "unhappy with the idea of a black guy in the White House." Kidding about the last one, but not really.

Kentucky voters were also asked by MSNBC "which candidate best resembles your skin color, and therefore shares your values? Clinton tallied 73% and Obama got 47%. Kidding again, but not really.

comment #1

Dave Polands Gut says ...

So thats the spin when Obama loses ie gets crushed? The voters are dumb racists?

comment #2

Mgmax says ...

That's always been the spin.

The reality is that there are plenty of good reasons for white Democrats in states like these to not believe their interests will be represented by a creature of the Sharpton-Jackson grievance industry and the Daley urban machine. Obama's great challenge in the months ahead will be to escape the spider webs of both and find a way to appeal to the centrists who decide elections in states like Ohio and Florida. Picking a "boring white guy" running mate who reassures such folks will be a big part of it, but it will also very much depend on whether Obama can again become what he used to be-- the postracial candidate of competency and decency and hard work and common sense, all of which are values very much opposed by the people he's allowed himself to be tied to lately.

comment #3

nemo says ...

". . . whether Obama can again become what he used to be-- the postracial candidate of competency and decency and hard work and common sense . . ."

Let's point out yet again that W. showed no signs of competency and decency and hard work and common sense at any time in his life either before or after 2000. Yet many people chose to vote for him.

There were other things some voters saw in W. that moved them to vote for him. Those voters may have been crazy, and their values may have been screwy, but they generally weren't dumb enough to think that W. stood for competency and decency and hard work and common sense.

Many voters will find plenty of reasons to vote against Obama, even if he appears to be the candidate of competency and decency and hard work and common sense. Let's hope it's not enough to bring back the third term of Bush.

comment #4

Mgmax says ...

So what's your argument, that Obama doesn't need to appeal to the center? The elections in this country are decided by the "Reagan Democrats who are also Clinton Republicans"-- centrists in states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida who skew a little older, unionized but socially a bit conservative (and fairly heavily Catholic). That's who Obama's gotta win, it's who McCain's gotta win too, it's who every president in the last 80 years has had to win. Obama right now looks likely to lose those people decisively, but fortunately for him, it's May, not October.

And anyway, whatever YOU may think of W's life before or after that point, Al Gore gave him three opportunities in three debates to, in fact, look like the grounded, competent, moderate, decent candidate next to a guy who was wound tighter than a snare drum.

comment #5

Howlingman says ...

IMHO what it really boils down to is the average middle class voter will vote for a white Republican over a black Democrat. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is.

comment #6

Mgmax says ...

Salon does the electoral math and says he has to win Ohio, basically:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/16/270/print.html

Frankly, I don't think it will actually come down to a squeaker. I think it will be obvious whether Obama's connecting, Reagan-style, or utterly failing to connect, McGovern-Mondale-style, well before election day.

comment #7

nemo says ...

I do agree that Obama needs to appeal to the center. And I agree that Gore was a terrible candidate. As were Kerry and Dukakis. And Mondale and Humphrey were not very good either. And Carter looked pretty bad next to Reagan.

I also think it would be great if the voting public came out strong every election for all four of competency and decency and hard work and common sense. But if you look at the people who even make it through the primaries, much less to the White House, it's pretty obvious that the voters will let other considerations override.

Given his history, I find it impossible to believe that most people who voted for Nixon ever thought he represented decency (though he was probably the last competent and hard-working Republican president we've had). Or who voted for Reagan thought he represented competency and hard work. There may have been a few idiots that naive, but not enough to win.

But there are plenty of voters who decide that other things matter more to them. Maybe they feel more comfortable with a white guy. Maybe in 68, 72, 80, and 84 they liked the GOP's Southern strategy. Maybe they got so complacent after the good times of the mid to late 1990s they thought in 2000 the good times would keep rolling no matter what kind of lazy ignoramus became president. Or maybe in 2004 they thought the war president would protect them against the big bad terrorists.

It would be great if competency and decency and hard work and common sense carried the day. But in most of the elections during my lifetime it's hard to believe that.

comment #8

nemo says ...

Oh yeah, I forgot, McGovern wasn't much of a candidate either.

I hope Obama continues to show both the appeal, the tenacity, and the wiliness of JFK and Bill Clinton. The country can't afford the Bush rerun that McCain is promising.

comment #9

nemo says ...

"both the appeal, the tenacity, and the wiliness"

How did that "both" get in there, with 3 items in the list? My high school English teachers would be appalled.

comment #10

Mgmax says ...

"Maybe in 68, 72, 80, and 84 they liked the GOP's Southern strategy."

Maybe some of those times, they were actually, y'know, right to pick who they picked.

Just a crazy thought...

comment #11

Mgmax says ...

"Or maybe in 2004 they thought the war president would protect them against the big bad terrorists."

Which the series of domestic terrorist attacks we've suffered since then proves was utter foolishness.

Oh wait....

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

Dave: Actually, Obama just trumped McCain again. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_poll_politics_dc

Mgmax: "Sharpton-Jackson grievance industry"

As opposed to the anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual grievance industry touted by conservative white males?

"and the Daley urban machine"

As opposed to the Giuliani do-nothing about the last WTC attack except racial profile black people urban machine?

"the postracial candidate of competency and decency and hard work and common sense, all of which are values very much opposed by the people he's allowed himself to be tied to lately."

Yes, he should team up with uniters like Hagee, Lott, and
Mike Brown.

"The elections in this country are decided by the "Reagan Democrats who are also Clinton Republicans"-- centrists in states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida who skew a little older, unionized but socially a bit conservative (and fairly heavily Catholic). That's who Obama's gotta win, it's who McCain's gotta win too, it's who every president in the last 80 years has had to win."

More like 40 years, thanks to Nixonian brain-washing...

"And anyway, whatever YOU may think of W's life before or after that point, Al Gore gave him three opportunities in three debates to, in fact, look like the grounded, competent, moderate, decent candidate next to a guy who was wound tighter than a snare drum."

That is the one time I agree. Obama might be civil, but he won't let McCain get a free pass.

nemo: The only reason Republican scumbags like Nixon and Reagan and Bush won elections[Though the verdict is still out on the last one.] was because they managed to paint anyone who wanted progressive change as a threat to American society, while arguing that they could bring us back to the "traditional" values of over-consumption and intolerance. For Nixon, the enemy was the peacenik; for Reagan, the enemy was non-corporate welfare; for Bush, the enemy was science. The only reason people are finally seeing through the party's fraudulent claims is because it's finally chosen to wipe away any vestige of common sense and logic in order to maintain its dying ideology.

comment #13

D.Z. says ...

"Which the series of domestic terrorist attacks we've suffered since then proves was utter foolishness."

*cough* Spain and Britain train-bombings and American nuclear plants in danger *cough*

comment #14

Mgmax says ...

"As opposed to the anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual grievance industry touted by conservative white males?"

Yes, exactly. Different positions have different constituencies. They appeal to them in many ways, which opponents are free to judge as noble or ignoble. Obama needs to win a constituency which has mistrust of some of his existing allies. Amazingly, the same is true of McCain.

"*cough* Spain and Britain train-bombings and American nuclear plants in danger *cough*"

I know Obama's America has 57 states, but really, Spain and Britain are NOT domestic concerns of ours.

"The only reason people are finally seeing through the party's fraudulent claims is because"

Ah yes, the fraudulent fall of Communism, the fraudulent defeat of the 70s' rampant inflation, the fraudulent 25-year economic boom... those dirty Republicans and their tricks of prosperity and defending us against our enemies...

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Obama needs to win a constituency which has mistrust of some of his existing allies. Amazingly, the same is true of McCain."

People may not like Wright, but at least he doesn't have blood through incompetence on his hands like Bush. When the guy's name is enough to kill seats in Republican strongholds, it's pretty clear that McCain is the one who has to be good at defense.

"I know Obama's America has 57 states, but really, Spain and Britain are NOT domestic concerns of ours."

And then you wonder why we're the only country left in Iraq...

"Ah yes, the fraudulent fall of Communism, "

Except for China, N. Korea, and Vietnam...

"the fraudulent defeat of the 70s' rampant inflation,"

Except for oil and food prices which are higher than those adjusted for 70s inflation...

"the fraudulent 25-year economic boom..."

An economic boom which has contributed to a wider disparity in wealth than when it started..

comment #16

MovieBob says ...

If this weren't so sad, it'd be funny.

Democrats had the most important AND YET most easily-winnable fight of their recent history (at least since Nixon) coming up, and they've thrown it away for the fantasy of running a candidate like you usually only see in the movies... and apparently have NEVER asked themselves why that is.

The resistance of what will end up being a majority of voters (notice I said VOTERS and not AMERICANS) to Obama sucks, but it's not primarily racial... it's CULTURAL. This election will not, one way or another, answer for anyone whether or not a Black American can be president, because Obama ISN'T a "Black American" in terms of his persona and perception: He's an ethnically-ambiguous (half-white, half-black, middle-eastern name) "citizen-of-the-world." A black man WILL be president at some point, and you can take to the bank that he will be A.) Older, B.) from the South and C.) posessed of a "working class all-American" persona.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Bob:

"Democrats had the most important AND YET most easily-winnable fight of their recent history (at least since Nixon) coming up, and they've thrown it away for the fantasy of running a candidate like you usually only see in the movies..."

Kind of ironic of you to say that, considering Reagan was an actor, too.

"The resistance of what will end up being a majority of voters (notice I said VOTERS and not AMERICANS) to Obama sucks, but it's not primarily racial... it's CULTURAL."

Yes, the non-majority believes in the idea that black people are culturally inferior to white people.

"A black man WILL be president at some point, and you can take to the bank that he will be A.) Older, B.) from the South and C.) posessed of a "working class all-American" persona."

Jesse Jackson already went for those angles.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

the=this

comment #19

Dave Polands Gut says ...

How in the hell can Obama get to the center? hes the most far left liberal in the Senate and he has zero appeal to Reagan Democrats. Guys that get to the center aren't buddies with Bill Ayers and Rev Wright.

comment #20

Dave Polands Gut says ...

DZ:

A little reminder. You aren't running against George Bush this year.

comment #21

Dave Polands Gut says ...

"I do agree that Obama needs to appeal to the center. And I agree that Gore was a terrible candidate. As were Kerry and Dukakis. And Mondale and Humphrey were not very good either. And Carter looked pretty bad next to Reagan."

Are you seeing the pattern here? They were all far left anti war liberals. Obama fits right in with them. Black or white or red or green.

comment #22

Mgmax says ...

"People may not like Wright, but at least he doesn't have blood through incompetence on his hands like Bush."

People may not like John Hagee, but at least he doesn't have blood through incompetence on his hands like Janet Reno.

MovieBob is very possibly right about the culture part mattering more than race per se. For all this (self-congratulatory) talk of white racism, the world is full of rednecks who would have leapt a few years ago at the chance to vote for a black man... whose name was prefaced by "General."

"Jesse Jackson already went for those angles."

Except for being younger, from Chicago and a shakedown artist. But apart from that he fit the profile perfectly!

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Dave: "A little reminder. You aren't running against George Bush this year."

No, but McCain is, tee hee.

"hes the most far left liberal in the Senate and he has zero appeal to Reagan Democrats."

And yet he's won states which would normally swing toward Reagan Democrats...

"Guys that get to the center aren't buddies with Bill Ayers and Rev Wright."

No, they're just buddies with Hagee and Falwell.

"Are you seeing the pattern here? They were all far left anti war liberals."

Actually, the pattern is that they were all educated progressives who were attacked for not being illiterate conformists like the Republicans. Also, Kerry fought in a war, while most of the jerks were chicken-hawks.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "People may not like John Hagee, but at least he doesn't have blood through incompetence on his hands like Janet Reno."

At least Reno got the perp. Osama is still out there.

"a shakedown artist."

He should show some integrity like Ken Lay.

comment #25

Mgmax says ...

Ho Chi Minh. Mary Jo Kopechne.

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

"Ho Chi Minh."

Osama funded by Reagan.

"Mary Jo Kopechne."

Bush's DUI.

comment #27

bb says ...

As somebody said before, the democrats had every reason to believe that they would sweep into office this year and they are going to blow it because they continue to forget the rule of the center. Sure, obama is going to swing right after the convention but he simply has too much baggage, and that doesn't include what is going to come out when the general begins. He's already contradicting himself every day and he isn't even running in the General Election yet.

There are a lot of really smart people on TV being paid a lot of money for their big brains that haven't realized this yet because the wouldn't know an average voter if their driver ran over one in their towncar. And they'll continue to get it wrong and make a lot of money in the process. And a lot of people will claim the election was rigged. Ohio returns will be challenged.

I look forward to November 5th when I can return to this blog and see exactly how jeffrey's head exploding will be translated into that day's post.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

bb: "and they are going to blow it because they continue to forget the rule of the center"

You don't seem to get that centrism is why they've *lost 8 more often than won elections.

"but he simply has too much baggage,"

He's got no more baggage than McCain.

"He's already contradicting himself every day"

You're confusing him for McCain.

"There are a lot of really smart people on TV being paid a lot of money for their big brains"

Are you watching the same tv shows as the rest of us?

comment #29

bb says ...

D.Z.,

I tend to pass over your contributions here because frankly I've yet to understand what exactly you are attempting with your fisking style of commentary. Since you don't actually offer up arguments of any substance, I would expect the short retorts to be pithy or clever but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the goal. In fact, the few times that I do settle on one of you comments, I'm left with this empty feeling, like tasting a single grain of salt but without that tangy salty sensation.

I think I understand the point of view you are coming from but not because you've actually provided any meaningful thoughts on the issues but because of your seeming retorts of others (but without the required wit).

But I guess the line by line dissection technique has served you well. You've certainly gotten your money's worth from whoever you paid to teach you such a fresh and riveting style of debate. I have thought a time or two about responding in kind but then we'd end up with 400 line comments, 99% enclosed in quotation marks.

Post a Comment