Would Clinton really have done that much better than Obama in Appalachia?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:52:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Would Clinton really have done that much better than Obama in Appalachia?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Would Clinton really have done that much better than Obama in Appalachia?  (Read 3550 times)
ReelectCarterMondale!
Rookie
**
Posts: 22


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 23, 2012, 04:47:31 PM »

I ask this because while many of these voters are registered as Democrats, they vote consistently conservatively both in primaries and in the general election. Furthermore, the last few cycles seem to indicate that this region is down more on the national party and what it stands for and that even conservative Democrats have had a difficult time electorally-speaking. These people supported neither Gore nor Kerry, both white men - one a southerner. Would they really have supported Hillary in greater numbers than they supported Barack? And if so, by how much?

I get that Sarah Palin wouldn't have been picked with Clinton as the nominee, would this have given her an opening against "moderate McCain" in the region? Discuss...
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2012, 05:31:37 PM »

She probably would've done slightly better than Kerry, due to the economy and Bush being a better candidate for the region than McCain.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2012, 08:33:56 PM »

Not unless she starts prancing around Appalachia championing how amazing clean coal is and regularly badmouths renewable energy.

Her color would probably allow her to do less bad, but the death of unions and the Democratic shift left on social and environmental issues makes victory in Appalachia impossible.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2012, 10:29:25 PM »

This region is lost for the Dems. Clinton might have broken 40% there, but not much more.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2012, 01:51:40 AM »

Doubt it -Appalachia is becoming more like Mississippi and Oklahoma among whites.  Most are still (amazingly) registered Democrats, but are Democrats in name only.  To all intents and purposes they are becoming dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. 

Why they don't just switch in this day and age is a mystery to me.  Is it too much of a bother just to go to your registrar and ask to switch party identification? 
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,625
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2012, 02:14:44 AM »

Probably in 2008 but some of Obama's problems would've impacted her in 2012.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2012, 12:06:15 PM »

Is it too much of a bother just to go to your registrar and ask to switch party identification? 

Yes
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2012, 12:24:34 PM »

Is it too much of a bother just to go to your registrar and ask to switch party identification? 

Yes
Because in lower appalachia, the Republicans freed the slaves and where there were no slaves, many people probably have an American Flag shaped like a Donkey on their family seals.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2012, 05:43:45 PM »

Is it too much of a bother just to go to your registrar and ask to switch party identification? 

Yes

Not just that but many small towns in the South still have Democratic local officials. If you don't vote in the Democratic primary, you basically have no say over who your mayor, county sheriff, state legislator, etc, is. I read an article shortly after election day saying that even though Republicans won all statewide offices in Alabama (for the first time since Reconstruction) and both chambers of the legislature there, the Democrats still have a majority of district court judgeships. I'd imagine they still have most of the other obscure local offices in rural areas.

Old habits die hard. A 65 year old Yellow Dog Democrat isn't going to start calling himself a Republican, even if his own party's most powerful elected official is a pointy-headed mulatto Yankee with Harvard learnin' who looks down his nose at plain folks like him.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2012, 01:00:34 PM »

Doubtlessly in 2008 (at least AR and maybe WV). Despite all the crowing, AR/WV/KY (not so much Tennessee these days) not only elect Democrats at a state level, but somewhat liberal ones (not leftists, but to the left of Manchin/Beshear). However, the Democratic Party has moved to an economically centrist (and not the populist/Blue Dog type of centrist) and socially progressive position which turns off a lot of whites who are willing to vote Democratic but dislike the packaging (race is a factor, but not the factor). In 2012, Arkansas would probably be a tossup (depending on how the economy was and who the nominee was), while WV/KY/TN would all be Lean/Likely R thanks to coal (and again, Tennessee has become more Republican).

There is also the factor that some liberals, especially affluent white liberals, claim to be tolerant and accepting of all while bashing and stereotyping all white Southerners as Bible-thumping, alcoholic, racist, and meth-addicted. That sort of cultural elitism is unacceptable against blacks and Latinos as it should be, but is it so wrong to say that white Appalachians, like all lower-income people in America, shouldn't be bashed and stereotyped?
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,137
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2012, 03:54:24 PM »

Marginally better. Appalachia is gone for the Dems.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2012, 09:45:23 PM »

Who says she would have?

I actually do think she would have, but I haven't heard anyone actually make the case. Here's what I think:
[1] As BRTD pointed out, Bush was a good candidate for the region compared to both McCain and Romney. Romney was actually a terrible candidate for the region, but not as bad as Obama.
[2] Kerry was a terrible candidate for the region. Massachusetts, rich, liberal, and then there was his wife. Although he did help himself with John Edwards, it's the top of the ticket that counts.
[3] Gore wasn't really a southerner anymore by 2000. He was a DC'er. When you're away from your home state for 8 years, join an economically (classically) liberal administration that emphasizes the "New Economy", shift to the left, and take up causes like environmentalism, you're no longer Tennessee's or Appalachia's home boy. I remember when Gore had to move his HQ from D.C. to Tennessee in the middle of the campaign and it became another emblem of his supposed insincerity. Bush was a great candidate for the south and Appalachia, and that's what did it. But Gore did have enough vestiges of southern in him to make Florida as close as it was. He still did light years better than Barack Obama in Appalachia.

But my main case is based on the polls in 2008. For instance, our polling average shows Clinton was lagging McCain by just 5 points in Kentucky at the time she lost her nomination battle. At the same time, Obama was losing the state by over 30 points. Three polls taken in West Virginia showed Clinton leading by 3 points in May while Obama was losing by 10 points. In Arkansas Clinton had a 2 point lead in Arkansas, when Obama was losing by 25 points. Missouri is closer, but shows the same pattern. In early May, Clinton and McCain were tied, whereas Obama was slightly behind, although he closed the gap after the nomination. But for instance, if you look at the Survey USA poll taken May 18, Clinton was up 2 and Obama was down 3 in the same poll. In the May 6 Rasmussen poll, McCain was up 6 on Obama and only up 2 on Clinton. In the April 13 Survey USA, McCain was up 8 on Obama but down 1 to Clinton, and so on. Finally, there is Tennessee. The early April 2008 polls show McCain opening a 10 point lead on Clinton, (partially based on an extremely suspect polling firm, Ayres McHenry) but he was leading Obama by at least 15 points. For instance, on the April 3 Rasmussen (the last GE poll to include both candidates), McCain led Clinton by 14 points, but he led Obama by an astonishing 27 points. The February 28 SurveyUSA poll (the second to last poll excluding Ayres McHenry), Clinton was tied with McCain. Obama was down 16 points in the same poll. Further, a quick glance at the chart shows Tennessee voters considered Clinton much more consistently than Obama- she actually led the polls in late 2007. Obama never came close.

Finally, there is the fact that the virtually singular, herculean Republican swing in Appalachia the heavily Democratic wave year of 2008 was too much to be explained as the product of long-running, secular factors. These are states (with the exception of Missouri) that were Clinton's biggest sources of margins in the primary by far. And in 2006 many of these areas sent blue dog conservadems to Congress and state capitols by huge margins. All indications point to 'personal' (i.e. personal to the Dem candidate) factors for the Republican Presidential ticket doing so well in Appalachia.

Given the fact that the May polls were taken before Lehman Bros. & the national popular vote was roughly tied at the time, I believe Clinton could have easily carried Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri as her husband did in 1996.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2012, 01:46:05 PM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2012, 03:51:02 PM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.

Obama and Clinton had the same positions on cap and trade, healthcare and taxes.  On what issues was Obama far more liberal?  I can't think of any.
Logged
Asian Nazi
d32123
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,523
China


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2012, 04:46:01 PM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.

Obama and Clinton had the same positions on cap and trade, healthcare and taxes.  On what issues was Obama far more liberal?  I can't think of any.

Skin color. Tongue
Logged
hcallega
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2012, 05:28:54 PM »

2008? Yes. There are a few reasons. The first is cultural. Clinton spun a strong narrative in the primaries as a daughter of middle America. Obama was very much seen as a product of an elite Harvard-Chicago political system that greatly turns off Appalachian voters. The second is the Bill factor. Don't underestimate how popular he is in that area of the country. He symbolizes economic growth, as well as the ascension of the Southern culture to the highest office in the country. Hillary would benefit from that popularity, and she'd be wise enough to deploy Bill to those states. Third, Clinton's campaign was aimed at working class Americans. Obama's message of "Hope and Change" wasn't elitist, but it primarily appealed to outsiders (African-Americans, young people, more affluent voters) who haven't been targeted in recent elections. White-working class voters are part of Clinton's base, and she communicated directly to them.

With that all in mind, I see the 2008 election map turning out something like this:

Senator Hillary Clinton/Senator Evan Bayh (D): 360 EVs, 52% of the PV
Senator John McCain/Governor Tim Pawlenty (R): 178 EVs, 46% of the PV

Now here's how I see 2012 turning out. Let's assume Clinton pushes harder on the economy, but only gets a few elements of healthcare reform passed and takes a more hawkish tone on foreign policy. Also, let's assume she faces off against Mitt Romney in the election.


President Hillary Clinton/Vice-President Evan Bayh (D): 50% of the PV, 327 EVs
Governor Mitt Romney/Senator Rob Portman (R): 48% of the PV, 211 EVs
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2012, 09:19:26 PM »

In the 2012 map, I'd switch MO with IA and AR.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2012, 09:26:21 PM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.

Obama and Clinton had the same positions on cap and trade, healthcare and taxes.  On what issues was Obama far more liberal?  I can't think of any.

Not exactly -she favored the individual mandate, and until he became President, Obama did not. 

Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2012, 10:54:15 PM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.

Obama and Clinton had the same positions on cap and trade, healthcare and taxes.  On what issues was Obama far more liberal?  I can't think of any.

Not exactly -she favored the individual mandate, and until he became President, Obama did not. 



That's relatively minor as a political matter.  Especially in the context of proposing the broad outline of a healthcare reform, which translates into a negotiating position with congress and the industry, not a piece of legislation.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2012, 11:10:26 PM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.

Obama and Clinton had the same positions on cap and trade, healthcare and taxes.  On what issues was Obama far more liberal?  I can't think of any.

Not exactly -she favored the individual mandate, and until he became President, Obama did not. 



That's relatively minor as a political matter.  Especially in the context of proposing the broad outline of a healthcare reform, which translates into a negotiating position with congress and the industry, not a piece of legislation.

The individual mandate is the centerpiece of Obamacare and at the maelstrom of that law's controversiality. There's a very good argument that it matters more than, say, whether Clinton was willing to apologize for her AUMF-Iraq vote, which was a purely symbolic matter. Clinton's health care plan was also larger in absolute size than Obama's. Clinton also called out the housing collapse and called for mortgage relief well before Obama. The housing collapse was the biggest economic factor that's been hanging over the country for the past 5 years, and the economy has been the biggest political issue this whole time. Also, Obama's advisors were also caught reassuring Canada that his promises to renegotiate NAFTA were bunk.

That Clinton was to the left of Obama on economics is one of the underappreciated aspects of the primary. No one remembers it because Obama was winning the more liberal voting blocs and most progressives focused on defeating Clinton at all costs. Even Obama's campaigning for Joe Lieberman was forgotten.

In fact, most progressives had no clue that the economy was going to become the biggest issue and were still living 2003-07 when the Iraq war was the biggest issue.

John Edwards was further to the left than either of them. He had the most conservative support in the primaries (just looking at the results in Iowa, South Carolina, and Oklahoma) and probably would have done even better than Clinton in Appalachia and among white voters (I'm just speculating here). It would have been a coup d'etat... get conservative white voters to vote for a far left populist.

The BIG irony of the 2008 Dem primary is that the candidate farthest to the economic left (Edwards) got the most conservative voters, whereas the candidate farthest to the economic right (Obama) got the most liberal voters.

If it had not been for Rielle Hunter most progressives would be saying "If only we had nominated John Edwards, we could have really transformed America." Instead of a joke and a disgrace he would be the Big What-If and Missed Opportunity (o/c, had he actually won it'd doubtful he would have followed through on his promises since he was always a phony, see his private equity connections, but still). Of course progressives hated Obama over the bank bailouts, but by then it was too late.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2012, 01:35:40 AM »

Yes, but because she was more centrist than Obama.  Obama far and away is just not a good fit for the region politically--he's WAY too liberal.  Not that Hillary Clinton's not pretty far-left herself, but just not as much as Obama.  So, although she probably wouldn't have done a whole lot better, she would have performed better than he did.

Name an issue where Obama and Clinton have substantively different positions.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 11 queries.