Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I know I have to severely knock on wood for saying so, but why exactly does Obama need 60 million votes at all when he'll have the other two hundred and forty million? Due respect, but the people who aren't voting for Obama in WV will not change their vote if Obama were to promise them ponies. I'd wager that the highest information voter in Appalachia thinks that Obama is one of several things and won't be convinced otherwise - 1.) Muslim 2.) Manchurian 3.) A socialist 4.) A traitor with no patriotism. There are some people who we are just going to have to move forward without. This is an over-generalization for sure, but the tone of this piece seems to suggest that if only Obama could show respect to the people who are horribly prejudiced against him, maybe he'd win them over. It might also be naive to think that the informed and progressive thinking American vastly outnumbers the uninformed and bigoted, but there it is.
That the Democrats have all but abandoned rural America in policy and practice during recent presidential election cycles may have to do with a faulty demographic map -- a lack of awareness of what it really takes to win a presidential election -- or it just may have to do with their candidates’ comfort level out beyond the sprawl.
Or, you know, maybe something about how rural white America abandoned the Democratic Party and its rural-as-they-come president for Ronald Reagan in 1980? That wasn't exactly a rustic-but-wise, salt-of-the-earth move, there.
Yes, the presumption that the party had lost its blue-collar constituency forever and that there was no use trying to win it back was emblematic of its general lack of institutional imagination. It took Bill Clinton to drag Democrats by the nose back to the reality of electoral politics and they still seem to want to bolt from it every chance they get.
But for all the failures of Democratic politicians on the campaign trail, it's not as if Appalachia or even rural America as a whole has been awash with Republican candidates the whole while.
What has happened is that middle America has been duped, for a long time, and hasn't ever wanted to admit it. If Obama can find a way for white blue collar working class voters to come over while also saving face, that will be the ticket.
If this is the way you feel, then prepare to lose.
It's not just a matter of numbers; the Republicans are already exploring the messages they will use in Appalachia, and how they will leverage the program elsewhere. Sure, you can write off the voters of Appalachia, in the comfort of your home office as racists; the Repugs will take your responses into their 72-, 36- and 24-hour task forces, and guarantee your loss among people who were leaning toward Obama. But as you said, no big deal. He only has to be the president of the coastal elites.
Then watch as they replicate the strategy with every other group the Dems don't know how to talk to ... veterans, immigrants who are not homogenous in their opinions about immigration reform, pro-life Democrats, evangelicals who are leaning Democrat for the first time ... and you can watch your margins walk out the door and say hello to President McCain.
To think otherwise is hubris. You think Obama has the other votes in the bag? Don't be too sure about it. Or, don;t be so sure that you can;t climb down off your high horse and engage with other people who are ready and willing to vote Dem and support this candidate after he gets in office, if only his supporters can stop condescending long enough to ask for their vote.
This is very depressing to me: that voters in Appalchia think Hillary Clinton is their "friend" and Barack Obama is not! Who of the two is more elite? Not Barack Obama, for sure. He has much more in common with these voters, than does Sen. Clinton. I think the issue is that he is BLACK--well, half-black! And, let's face it, outside of the major cities, the population is not educated and will most likely believe what the right-wing media and psychopathic politicians tell them: that Obama is a Muslim; that he does not care about their problems, etc. etc. In truth, both Clinton and Obama would do more for the people of Appalachia than John McCain. Since Obama will be the Democratic Presidential nominee, it will be in their best interests to vote for him. If they do not.......well, all the sterotypes will be reinforced--that they are prejudiced, ignorant and uneducated!!!
What a spectacularly unilluminating piece.
What's the point, here, exactly?
That the fancy-pants elitists ought to stop making fun of hillbillies if they expect to get their votes?
Is that the point?
Hardly a revelation.
A particularly dubious passage reads: "In 2004, Kerry lost the rural battleground by about 20 percent and with it a close election. The rural vote was particularly telling in the pivotal state of Ohio, where a massive Democratic get-out-the-vote effort in cities and suburbs was more than offset by increased Republican success with rural voters. Many of those rural voters were Appalachian and blue collar, people who back before the name-calling were reliable Democrats. They gave Bush a second term."
This is quite a hefty claim and may be accurate, but how about some substantiation?
We're to understand that "rural voters" turned away from the Democratic party due to "name-calling?"
Which name-calling, exactly?
Because they found The Beverly HIllbillies offensive? Because of jokes about toothlessness and cousin-marrying that circulate in the vulgar joke circuit?
If the crux of this essay is that these voters have had their feelings hurt (and that's the closest to a crux I can find), and specifically by the Democratic party, then why not write about that?
I'd be interested to see a serious examination of this dynamic.
As is, it rests on no authority but the author's and seems to rely on some kind of "conventional wisdom" rather than evidence.
And what of the explanation that the reason these voters don't go for Obama is primarily or at least largely racism?
Why is the author so cavalier in rejecting this explanation?
It's an important subject, so why just laugh it off?
However shrill or offensive you may find the voices who articulate this position, that doesn't mean it's without merit.
This essay really does nothing but to stir the pot, and amounts basically to a glorified, "Nyah, nyah!"
Mission accomplished.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
