Bell:

I answered you in the same message to Demo. Its long, I did not want to repeat it, and it allows me to answer both of you. I hope that is ok? :)

Funny about the Taylor-tuckians - I actually have seen a parallel to that. When I was a boy in Tennessee, Saturn located their new plant not far from my home, to much hoopla and happiness for all of the jobs that would be coming. Funny thing was, a lot of those jobs ended up going to people who moved south from Michigan, and the cultural adjustment was rather difficult. My brother was in high school when the first true wave of them hit the schools, and he said that the kids from up north seemed to have a much harder time dealing with what was essentially a racially-integrated public school. A quote from a poster here summed it up pretty well from my point of view: "southern racists are OK with blacks being close, they just don't want them to get too big; northern racists don't care how big blacks get, as long as they aren't too close."

sawbones:

read my reply to Demo to expand upon your reply.

Too too funny. I don't know the last time I laughed so hard... <link>

And then there's the other other white meat. <link>

What a hoot. Thanks.

If you really think that the quote you mentioned from WV bears heeding (and from a simple political strategy standpoint, it does), then I don't see the logical conclusion being an Obama/Clinton ticket. Adding a lesser anathema to decrease the sting of the ultimate taboo (one o' them nigras in the presidency)? I don't see it helping. By the usual logic of VP selection, one would select someone who addresses fundamental existing weaknesses - in other words, Obama would need a gun totin', beef eatin', hood-wearin' cracker from Alabama to "balance the ticket."

Now if the WV quote represents something to be argued against, I can see a Clinton VP spot as a very intentional slap at this kind of thinking - a statement of "yeah, this is who we are and we don't apologize for it." But that's a much more difficult campaign to run, and I'm not sure many Democrats want to make things even harder than they already are.

Inkberrow:

and for it to bring up the issue of taunts towards Obama worker's is interesting. NPR ran a report on the primary in West Virginia and their were several comments on the radio about Obama's electability against McCain.

"He will lose against McCain as he is a black man." by one woman.

Now that is NPR and it is entirely possible a staffer could have made that statement as NPR is liberal in content and couls skew things to reflect racism. Is racism a salient issue in the selection of a Democratic candidate for this general election? Yes it is, the same as "Ball Crackin Hillary" is a gender issue.

It is obvious we are not lynchin blacks on trees anymore. Instead we are more subtle about it with red-lining certain areas for mortgages and insurance or not so subtle by yelling slurs while in a passing car, which is certainly not going to be prosecuted (oh excuse me, I am not a lawyer; but, the one present here [Fray] agrees with me - she laughed at your previous statements). We can see the discrimination and racism in everyday life as still practiced since WWII in the unemployment rate that has been twice that of whites historically. We can also see it in their opportunity to rise out of the lowest quartile of income which is an ~1 of 3 chances as compared to whites at ~ 2 of 3. Why do your think such is the case? Your view is a well-worded contrarian one; but, it is not supported by much other than your opinion. Racism still exists with less of the violence and more of the verbal slurs and economic impediments. Poor and poverty stricken African Americans have plenty to be angry about in America; but then, we had this discussion before where you again offered specious and unsupported opinion.

Nice try dude!

Sawbones:

No one has won the presidency without West Virgina. I see WV liking Clinton and the make-up of WV is working class. I see a strong ticket where one is satisfied with the other. Where by themselves Obama would not be accepted; but acceptable with Clinton added. Maybe false hopes and logic.

... however, if you can think of anybody else who might sit in the number two spot, besides Clinton, who could bring some of that demographic balance without raising the same possible post-election friction in the West Wing?"

Yeah.

Jim Webb

appalachian scotch-irish
war hero (please, God, let those assholes try to Swiftboat him)
genuine tough guy
former SecNav
Iraq War opponent (documented in many speeches) from before Day1

&kathleen pointed me to that one several years ago. My husband bought me the book for my birthday last year.

Also false political slogans. The whole "nobody has won the presidency without West Virginia" is nonsense - witness Bush (1988), Reagan (1980), Nixon (1968), and Eisenhower (1952). And even if you use Clinton's parsing, substituting "no Democrat" for "nobody," you run into tricksy little difficulties with facts as quickly as Wilson in 1916. West Virginia as a bellwether of presidential elections is about as sure a bet as any other random association, but no more.

As for the working-class bit, there is still no evidence that Obama will do significantly worse among working-class voters than Clinton when faced with John McCain. As much as the Clinton people would like to play it up, that really is not his problem demographic. His biggest problem groups are senior citizens and Latinos, and to a lesser extent women (although I think that last one will lessen once Hillary is out of the race and some time has passed between the primary fight and the general) - any of those could be addressed by a VP candidate who brought strengths of his or her own without bringing the significant negatives that Clinton would carry.

Sawbones

and you ignore the content of my post. We can hope you are correct

I didn't ignore the content - I was pointing out that while Obama loses working-class whites to Clinton in a head-to-head Democratic matchup, I have not yet seen evidence that he trails her badly among this same group in a head-to-head matchup with McCain. Perhaps the numbers are out there and I haven't seen them, but so far I'm unaware of anything that indicates that most of those voters won't still go Democratic in the general. And absent a major falloff among those voters, he would be better advised to pick a VP who could help him among other problem demographics (which might well be Hillary for getting seniors and/or women).

With what part specifically did you disagree?

sawbones:

So no Dem President has gone to the White House without winning WV since 1916? So I got it partially wrong? So what? The probability of that streak being broken is high; but even so, Obama still is not taking those with him who are considered the working-class.

He has a problem in appeal to them and no parsing of words or stats by anyone can change it. One AP poll showed he was unfavorably viewed by white adults of the working class and up from last November. My own observations in Michigan and rundeep's in PA, I would not sneer at or take it so lightly. Other polls have suggested a high cross over to McCain if Clinton is not selected or an attitude of not voting.

PA: “They just can't identify with him, they haven't found anything they can relate to,” Richards said. Exit polls showed a quarter of Clinton supporters said they might vote for McCain or simply not vote if Obama was the Democratic nominee.

This has carried through in Michigan also. In 2000, Gore lost the working class by 17% and in 2004, Kerry lost it by 24%. Axelrod makes no pretense of attempting to win the working class and leaves them aside.

“Let's understand – the white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections,” Axelrod told National Public Radio. “This is not new. Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes.”

On the other hand, McCain has targeted them as part of a winning coalition. I do not believe this makes for a very good strategy. So should we loose them by 30% when ~120 million of them make-up 40% of the population?

Futhermore, we need to somehow mitigate the issue of race as some will still vote by color.

"Part of the problem for Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, is uneasiness about race. The exit polls showed nearly 20 percent of voters in Pennsylvania said race was important to them, and they heavily backed Clinton."

“Let's not pretend, some of it is race,” pollster John Zogby said. “Among some ethnic voters, there will be difficulty accepting an African-American, especially when he's off message and on the defensive the way Obama was the last few weeks.”

I want to win back the White House and stop this slippage and Obama is dragging a lot of baggage that is not going to be done away with regardless whether it is legit or not. I see no more negatives to Clinton as I see in Obama. It could work and why would you write off a candidate who trails Obama by 7% in popular polls and gaining?

I'm not writing off McCain - I'm saying that I have seen no convincing evidence that when forced to choose between McCain and Obama (as opposed to Obama and Clinton), that working-class voters will move in large numbers to the Republican. The numbers of Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain has oscillated back and forth, and it has never been far from the similar number for Obama supporters until recently - when it became clear that Obama was very likely to win. That's not a surprising reaction, and it is exactly the type that tends to dissipate with the passage of time.

You're right that Obama shouldn't write off working-class voters. I think his avoidance of Kentucky is not a good strategic move, as his numbers go up in every state where he actually campaigns. And I'm not "sneering" at anyone's observations about working-class voting patterns - I'm just asking for someone to show me some numerical evidence before I get behind the selection of a VP candidate who carries some pretty significant baggage of her own.