Class The Problem With Obama, Not Race?

9 Responses to “Class The Problem With Obama, Not Race?”

1. Martin Kennedy writes
   May 9th, 2008 7:46 am

   I think that’s good analysis from GoldnI especially the the part about splitting independents. Obama though will be making a mistake if he imitates Clinton and does goofy photo ops showing that he’s just a good ole boy at heart a la Hillary. His appeal is like Jack Kennedy’s who was also a member of the aristocracy, and comfortable with that at a time when most Irish-Catholics were not.

   Toffishness? I love learning new words.

2. Sean Braisted writes
   May 9th, 2008 8:27 am

   Well, its better to have a candidate who is right on the issues if perhaps not a NASCAR devotee; than to have a “regular joe” candidate who is diametrically opposed to the American people on the War, the Economy, and health care.

3. GoldnI writes
   May 9th, 2008 8:53 am

   Honestly, I just quoted that article because they used the word “toffishness”. And because they referred to the gas tax holiday as the “petrol holiday.” God I miss London.

4. Martin Kennedy writes
   May 9th, 2008 9:24 am

   Sean, I think GoldnI’s post was dealing with electability and an analysis of what might be motivating voters. Surely style counts for much when determining a presidential candidate’s chances. My question for you: Does style count more than substance? And, does your answer to that question change if you segment the market? Do people in “Arugula world” weigh it differently than people in “Deliverence world?”

5. GoldnI writes
   May 9th, 2008 9:28 am

   I know the question was directed to Sean, but honestly Dr. K, if the average voter cared more about substance than style, then how do you explain Bush? Al Gore and John Kerry both had far more substance, but neither of them could match him on charisma.

   But with Obama we get both.

6. Sean Braisted writes
   May 9th, 2008 10:15 am

   Martin,

   I addressed this in a post last month, I think quite frankly the media likes to concoct narratives to talk about politics; because policy issues and economic factors are too complex.

   Ultimately, the situation of the country at the time of an election is the best, most reliable indicator of electability we have.

   McGovern’s coalition consisted of liberals and African-Americans not because that was the only constituency he could appeal to; but because the country liked Nixon at the time and that was the most reliable Democratic constituency.

   The country does not like George Bush, the Republican party, and after a few months, won’t much like John McCain either. While the media will focus on the freak show, spectacle aspect of the campaign; the vast majority of Americans will make a decision based mostly on policy.

   Will there be some who won’t vote for Obama because he is a smart black dude? Sure, and the media will focus on them because they get to do a man on the street with someone who is entertaining…but that doesn’t mean it will be a deciding factor.

   When all is said and done, Barack Obama will have received more votes in the Democratic primary than any candidate in history. Barack Obama’s favorable ratings in most polls are higher than Clintons, and even higher than McCains in many. That he has survived 6 months of tough campaigning and still maintains positives in the 50+ range, shows he’s a stable candidate who will most likely win in November.

7. Martin Kennedy writes
   May 9th, 2008 12:02 pm

   GoldnI says that style counts for more when considering the entire electorate. I tend to agree. Sean, your point that this time people will vote on policy confuses me. It comes right after you say that people don’t LIKE Bush, the Republican Party, and won’t LIKE McCain shortly. I disagree with you on the likability of McCain. Rush and Hannity and Steve Gill don’t like McCain but I think the average person, even Dems, do. I don’t think that will change. Talk about narratives. He has weaknesses but his personal story is the stuff of American folklore. He refused release from North Viet Nam, under pain of torture, until those captured before him were released.

   I would say GoldnI that I think Gore lost due primarily to Bill Clinton fatigue. I think on economic policy many people do tend to vote strictly on perception and style and consumer confidence. The positive correlation between GDP growth and vote percentage for the incumbent party is very strong (Gore’s loss being an outlier). I don’t see dramatic differences between the parties on economic policy. It is a matter of a bit more progessivity in the tax code and some more regulation with a Democratic administration. An Obama administration will not turn its back on trade… I don’t think. So economic policy - mostly perception. Presidents are like quarterbacks in football - too much credit when things are going well and too much blame when things are sluggish. Foreign policy? Different story… the president can have a dramatic impact. I think Obama should leak before the general that Jim Webb will be his Sec. of Defense. Not only is the former Reagan Navy Secretary a good political move - Scots-Irish vote, a beloved figure in the military… but the guy inspires the most confidence when discussing the Middle East. He is just a real impressive character. I think substance does matter when it comes to issues like stem-cell research, abortion, gay marriage etc. For some voters those issues are big and the differences between the parties at the national level are big. And, I think this is where Obama has opportunity. His addressing issues of family responsibility when it comes to education is great, politically and substantively.

8. Wintermute writes
   May 9th, 2008 1:16 pm

   There is a lot of underexposed antipathy to the ways of the black underclass and to the old inflammatory ways of some black demagogues.

   However, Obama is not a member of that underclass, nor are his views inflammatory.

   Perhaps he has learned better how and when to draw the line between loyalty and tolerance, and disapproval of certain ideas.

9. Sean Braisted writes
   May 9th, 2008 3:11 pm

   Martin,

   I wasn’t saying that people won’t like McCain personally…hell, if you did a poll just on personality traits, Bush would still poll in the mid-to-high 40s. But in terms of liking him to lead this country’s economy and foreign policy, once they find out that The Maverick has been co-opted by the Bush wing of the GOP…I think you’ll begin to see a shift.

   Personally, I think his economic views are wildly simplistic. To him, every problem is the result of “earmarks,” and specifically the “Bridge to Nowhere.” This will get real old, real fast, and once you scratch beneath the surface I don’t know that there is a lot there. Conversely, I think Obama is pretty well-rounded on policy, and the more people get to know him, the more they are going to be comfortable with him.

   Thanks to the Food Network’s popularity, I think the stigma of eating leafy greens or drinking wine has dissipated since 1988.