"Obama Appeals to Academics and Clinton Appeals to Jacksonians"
Submitted by mad4clark on April 3, 2008 - 5:57pm.
Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Democratic politics
Just saw this great article at US News & World Report....and boy did it ring a bell. I found myself shouting YES YES YES!
This is the reason I'm a Hillary supporter. This is the reason I'm a Wes Clark Supporter.
I'm 3/4 Scots, 1/4 Irish.
It was foretold!!
.....When I first noticed Obama's weak showings among Appalachians, I chalked them up, as many in the press will be inclined to do, to an antipathy to blacks. But that simply doesn't hold up. Go back to 1995, and look at the polls that showed that most Americans would support Colin Powell for president. I don't think you'll find any evidence of resistance by Jacksonian voters to the Powell candidacy. Rather the contrary, I suspect. He was a warrior, after all, and always exudes a sense of command. Or go back and look at the election returns in 1989 in which Douglas Wilder became the first black governor in our history, in Virginia. Jacksonians in southwest Virginia showed no aversion to Wilder; rather the contrary. Take Buchanan County, which runs along both West Virginia and Kentucky, and which voted 90 percent to 9 percent for Clinton over Obama on February 12. In 1989, it voted 59 percent to 41 percent for Wilder over Republican Marshall Coleman. Overall, Wilder lost what is now the Ninth Congressional District (long known as the Fighting Ninth) by a 53 percent-to-47 percent margin. But that is far less than the 59 percent-to-39 percent margin by which George W. Bush beat John Kerry in the district in November 2004 or the 65 percent-to-33 percent margin by which Clinton beat Obama there in February 2008. Jacksonians may reject certain kinds of candidates, but not because they're black. A black candidate who will join them in fighting against attacks on their family or their country is all right with them.
Of course, the real Jacksonian in this race is John McCain. He is descended from Scots-Irish fighters who settled in Carroll County, Miss. Former Sen. Trent Lott, who once worked as a fundraiser for the University of Mississippi and therefore knew the folkways of elite types in his state very well, once told me that he had relatives who had known McCain's relatives in Mississippi. "They were fighters," he said, as best I can remember his words. "They would never stop fighting you. Those people would never stop fighting." Obama gives the impression, through his demeanor and through his statements on Iraq, that he would never start fighting. That appeals enormously to voters in the academia and public-employee enclaves of America, who want to deny honor to our warriors and arrogate it to themselves (think of those bumper stickers that call for spending Pentagon dollars on teachers). Clinton and, more convincingly, McCain give the impression that they will never stop fighting until they have achieved victory (Clinton in Denver, McCain in Iraq). I don't know which side of this argument you like, but as someone who is an academic by experience (degrees from Harvard and Yale) and a Jacksonian by inheritance (my paternal grandmother, whose West Virginian great-grandfather voted Republican as late as 1944 because the Confederates had burned his family's barn), I think I have some understanding of both sides.
Clinton's support from Jacksonians gives her, as I have argued, a chance to overtake Obama in the popular vote and an opportunity to argue to the superdelegates that she should be the Democratic nominee. They're a significant bloc of voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky (although I should note that this week's polls in Pennsylvania show her running behind my projections). The Democratic Party has seldom won a presidential election without their support: Jimmy Carter carried Jacksonian voters in 1976, and so did Bill Clinton in 1992 and, by a lesser margin, in 1996. If Al Gore had carried just West Virginia or Kentucky or Tennessee or Georgia or Arkansas—all states carried by Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992, all heavy with Jacksonians—he would have been elected president in 2000, and we wouldn't have spent 37 days arguing how to count the vote in Florida. This Democratic primary contest has become a bitter fight between blacks and Latinos, young and old, upscale and downscale—and academics and Jacksonians.
Read the whole thing......it's long, but gawd does it answer questions for me.
I'm am really into scientific explanations for things. I have wondered ...again and again...why most Clark supporters went for Hillary whilst some went for O
Well....as with everything, imho, it's genetic. ;P
I am Scots/Irish. I like fighters. Hillary and Wes are fighters.
Ergo...
:)
in life. Everyone has something going on. The difference is, on any given day, is your battle big or small, or even worth fighting? From unjust parking tickets, to a co-worker stealing ideas, the bills, the mortgage...for so many of us it's a constant struggle just to keep our heads above water. We may not be on the front lines of any conflict, but daily life can toss enough obstacles in ones path to qualify it as a veritable gauntlet.
I guess a big difference is how one feels about the obstacles and skirmishes. Do you just hunker down, figure you've got some more karma, or whatever, to burn through and say, I'll be getting through all this somehow? Or are you the type to holler "not fair!" and stomp your feet and find someone to blame? I used to be the latter, but as I've grown, I've just settled into the former. I've learned, the hard way, that 'fairness' has nothing to do with it. Or as my husband is fond of saying to the youngins on his staff, "the sooner you get on top of the 'not fair' pile, the better off you'll be."
As this campaign has progressed, I've seen three main reasons for supporting O from O supporters:
1.) CHANGE!!!! The nebulous, arbitrary Change. I've just accepted that one, cause I really don't know how to deal with it anymore. The folks behind that one have dug in their heels and seem to be Clinton haters more than any of the rest.
2.) Race. "It's time for a black president." Sure. I whole heartedly agree. Once upon a time, I was completely in the tank for Colin Powell. I remember thinking, here's a guy who's got all the creds! And the fact that he's AA is a bonus!
So, sure, while it's time for a black (or multi-race) president, let me just turn the tables on the Hill haters for a second and just say, "But not this guy."
But more to the point, and we discussed this one to death the other night, and I got more than a little pissed off certain implications made at that time, and prefer not to hash over the whole ugly mess again, let's just say that some people who support O are (unconsciously?) willing to look past some very troubling information regarding his political past and his lack of experience. If he was a white male? He wouldn't be here. If he was a woman, of any race? He would not be here.
There. I've said it. (And so have a few others, so I'm in pretty good company.
Finally, 3.) O the Saviour. The hero on the horse, the shining one, the fella who, just by the very fact that he's going to work in the Oval Office, is going to Change My Life. :-( I really can't say any more on that.
So. We're all fighters, in some sense or another. It's just why, when and how we choose to fight. Me? Head down, under the radar, one foot in front of the other with ranting over the dirty dishes once in awhile to blow off steam. Neither fair nor unfair. It just is.
Link.
"It isn't fair, it isn't right," Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Interesting. Hmm....
I was fascinated (as no doubt so many of us were) with this story the first time I read it in middle school.
I still am. Mostly on the level of the superstitious bent, and the arbitrary choice of the sacrifice. It is what it is, and there's naught to do about it. Hmmmm....you always toss out more food for thought, Stan! :-)
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
it can be overcome by the very attributes you mention. I believe a black candidate must demonstrate here that he/she is not "too black". I know that sounds cliched and spoken all too quickly and easily and means different things to different people. But what I'm talking about is the perception among many whites that some blacks are out to right all the wrongs done to them by taking it out of the hides of whites. BO's overwhelming support by blacks is a two-edged sword, which has vaulted him into Southern wins but has pricked the comfort zone of the area's whites. His wife's and Oprah's comments of "it's our time" and Michelle's surly-sounding remarks have irked some whites, and Pastor Wright's dialogue has been interpreted as racist and unpatriotic by many non-blacks. Unfortunately, many of the blacks who've spoken out about the preacher have not tried to excuse Obama'a association, but have defended Wright's words. Add this to the perception that BO is ultra-liberal and too highfalutin', and it's all a serious problem for him in hillbilly country.
What I find most appealing about Hillary is that she is "scary smart" and does her homework (sometimes being the only Senator at committee meetings listening to testimony) before she has to fight. Also part of why I support Wes. You gotta know what you're doing before you fight. As the song goes, you have to know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em; when to walk away, when to run.
No arguments from me.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
trying to figure out why academics support Obama. It makes no real sense since acdemics are suppoed to be the ones who think deeply about things. All one has to do is some solid research to learn that Obama is not who we like to imagine him to be.
Could someone please tell me how a rather mediocre to poor Illinois state senator, with an abysmal voting record, a history of not doing his job, who has links to Chicago slumlords - and worse, who takes credit for work he has never done and with only 1/2 term as a mediocre US Senator, in a few short months can rise to the level of One who is considered by many to be the next Savior and Leader of the Free World?
What's wrong with these people?
For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama must drop out - NOW! He is no longer a viable national candidate.
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,331956,00.html
"Over the years, as a confirmed skeptic, I've not been too charitable to purveyors of the paranormal. Israeli "psychic" Uri Geller has felt the sting of my columns, as has medium John Edward, who claims he is in touch with our dearly departed. I've ridiculed believers in Therapeutic Touch and Alien Abductions, and made light of those who insist that UFOs are visitors from other worlds.
Now I'm feeling a little guilty. It turns out that these poor souls, as well as the millions who hold similar beliefs, really can't help themselves. It's their body chemistry that makes them so gullible. At least that's the conclusion reached by a group of Swiss neurologists who had previously suggested that those who believe in the paranormal seem to be more willing than skeptics to see patterns or relationships between events.
To discover what might be triggering these irrational connections, the researchers report in the British journal New Scientist, they persuaded 20 admitted believers and 20 adamant skeptics to take part in an experiment. First the scientists briefly flashed faces and scrambled faces on a screen, then real words and pseudo words. It quickly became evident that the believers were much more likely to see a real word or face when there wasn't one.
The Swiss scientists then gave all of the volunteers a dose of L-dopa, which is widely used to relieve symptoms of Parkinson's Disease by increasing the levels of dopamine in the brain. The drug caused both groups to make more mistakes, but the skeptics became more likely to interpret the scrambled faces and words as the real thing.
To the researchers, these results suggest that paranormal thoughts are associated with high levels of dopamine in the brain and that L-dopa makes skeptics less skeptical. I guess, then, that the assumption can be made that my levels of dopamine are abysmally low"
The question has crossed my mind as well. Of course there are academics who support Clinton also.
Academics face the same limited choices as everyone else; just three possible candidates. Since many, most that I know, are more than a little reluctant to support a Republican they're left with just two choices.
Despite what some of my students may think academics are people too and like most people in this country they want change. That presents Clinton with a real cache-22. Clinton's trump card in this contest is her experience but experience means she's tied to past events and decisions so by stressing experience she hardly comes across as an agent for change. However, her experience is why many academics do support her.
When people consider experience they naturally look at her husband's administration, which wasn't as great as many would like to think. Just two years into Bill Clinton's administration the Republicans took control of Congress and started this country down a long slippery slop, people who do a little research do remember that. For some it means that they can't bring themselves to support anyone associated with the Clinton administration.
The faculty that I talk with who support Obama are aware of Chicago politics and his very limited experience but unable to support Clinton he's all they're left with. They may be academics but they're also realists and know that they must choose between Clinton and Obama.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
and Hillary is a pragmatist. They don't like Hillary because she will do whatever it takes to get the job done.
Having worked in both academic and corporate culture, I can tell you that, in some academic circles at least, "getting it done" is viewed as lowbrow, compromising, shilling. It's better to 1) try and fail, or 2) not try, and spend time criticizing those who *do* try. Not all, certainly, especially not in the hard sciences, but I used to go insane with boredom at community college meetings, listening as one professor after another got so hung up on process, principles and minutiae that nothing to DONE.
Hillary would never stand for it. :)
Jacksonian group--and his campaign slogan was "Born Fighting." he's done pretty well for Va, tho I have to admit that Allen's macaca moment was prolly vital to his win.
I'm Scotch-Irish-English--I sure admire a fair fighter, tho I don't know how tough I am :). I can't hold a candle to Hillary, for sure!
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
from Fleaflicker at No Quarter:
...
...Obama’s support is largely concentrated in areas where among other things he has vast African American support. While Hillary’s support is more widespread across the country.
In reviewing the maps of the Democratic primary results, in Dave Leip’s electoral atlas, I was struck by the narrow geographic base of Barack Obama’s candidacy. In state after state, he has carried only a few counties—though, to be sure, in many cases counties with large populations. There are exceptions, particularly in the southern states with large numbers of black voters in both urban and rural counties. But overall, the geographic analysis has pointed up to me a divide between Democratic constituencies—a divide as stark as that between blacks and Latinos or the old and the young—which has not shown up in the exit polls. It’s a division that helps to explain the quite different performances of Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election pairings against John McCain.
Michigan. The Democratic National Committee has ruled that these results do not count, and Obama was not on the ballot, though prominent Democrats urged Obama supporters to vote for “Uncommitted.” Hillary Clinton beat “Uncommitted” by the unambiguous but not overwhelming margin of 55 percent to 40 percent. Yet Obama carried only two of 83 counties: Emmet County, a small county at the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula, and Washtenaw County, the site of the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. “Uncommitted” beat Clinton in two of 15 congressional districts, the black-majority 13th and 14th districts.
As is quite clear, Obama did well in only two counties in the whole state. Two counties out of 83. Not exactly widespread popularity. Conversely, in South Carolina Obama did very well. He only lost two counties. One to Hillary and one to Edwards.
In Florida, again Obama did not do very well considering the margin by which he lost the state. He won in only 5 Congressional districts statewide. Considering his lack of popular support in Michigan and Florida it is no wonder he is standing in the way of having their votes counted. In fact he only won in 7 of 67 counties in Florida.
~ snip ~
This pattern of voting continued in Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma, where Obama only carried one county. The trend continued even into New Mexico where Obama won in the more affluent communities but Hillary won more overall and more wide spread throughout the state. In Missouri where Obama claimed victory, he carried only 5 counties in the entire state. And most in counties that were heavily African American. The pattern of Jacksonian defection was also demonstrated in Obama’s home state of Illinois.
~ snip ~
In Texas where Hillary won 51% to 47% Obama won in only 24 counties while Hillary won in 226. Quite a significant difference. And in Ohio where Hillary turned this race around, Obama carried only 5 counties and 4 Congressional Districts.
In Ohio,
Clinton won 54 percent to 44 percent. Obama carried only five of 88 counties: Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus: state capital, Ohio State University), Delaware (upscale Columbus suburbs), Montgomery (Dayton), and Hamilton (Cincinnati). He carried only four congressional districts, 1 (Cincinnati), 3 (Dayton), 10 (east side of Cleveland), and 12 (Columbus), and came very close in 15 (the other side of Columbus). Clinton won between 61 percent and 70 percent in four districts: 6 (Ohio River from Portsmouth up toward Youngstown), 10 (west side of Cleveland), 17 (Youngstown-Akron), and 18 (east central Ohio). Here we see our Jacksonians again, very negative toward Obama. On Fox News on election night, I emphasized the strong Clinton (or weak Obama) showings in southern Ohio, and I think rightly so. I was stunned by the size of the Clinton margins, and I have thought ever since that this bodes ill for Obama’s chances of winning votes in western and central Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and perhaps (though it’s a small part of the state) western North Carolina.~ snip ~
All in all this very detailed analysis completely disputes the lie propagated by the Obama campaign that they are the one’s that have the more widespread support throughout the country. When the numbers are actually examined it becomes very clear that Hillary is the candidate that represents the vast majority of America. And the only Democratic candidate that will win the White House.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
All in all this very detailed analysis completely disputes the lie propagated by the Obama campaign that they are the one’s that have the more widespread support throughout the country.
More lies.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Even NPR. The reports there, although not as blatant as KO and Tweety, heavily lean Obama, pushing all the same crap we hear everywhere except the few blogs that aren't in the tank for O.
If he ends up with the nomination, and we end up with a president McCain, will the progressives who supported him finally remember, when the media is pushing a candidate down our throats, maybe it's not a positive for Dems? 'Cuz right now, they seem to have forgotten that. Ugh.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
An interesting conversation in my office this week revolved around Jacksonian principles and Jackson the man. The African Americans in the discussion don't like Jackson (or Jefferson) at all-say he was a racist and an Indian killer. They don't even like the fact that Democrats use the two as their big headliner events (JJ Dinners/fundraisers).
Wes Clark spoke highly of Jackson as he had just read another biography of him when he spoke at the WesPAC Annual (one time) Event in 2005. I know Jim Webb holds him in high esteem as well, evoking his principles all the time. I wasn't aware that he is not well liked among the population of color.
But then, I don't really know what the hell I am. I've been told that I'm some combination of Irish, Scotch, and French. With probably a high dose of poor white trash thrown in.
I've argued before that the Clarkies who saw Clark as a savior of the party and country, riding in on a white horse in shining armor, leaned toward Obama, while the Clarkies who saw his résumé and intellect lean toward Hillary. I have no data at all. Just a suspicion. I really hadn't considered the "fighting nature" of Clark, on which this article concentrates. There's no question, though, that our General is a fighter, and is his 2008 choice for President.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!