Reader Forum: McCain And The Rust Belt

Reader Matt wonders:

Like everyone else, am trying to figure out why Obama can't win in the Rust Belt. I have a theory that I'm trying to get feedback on, and that is that this has little to do with race in comparison to the economy.

First, I think these folks are afraid of what he represents as far as the youth movement, which so used to a global economy that they really don't pay too much attention as to whether an item is manufactured here or across the globe. Second, I think they are also afraid of the green movement to a degree, since it involves a 180 degree shift in the manufacturing patterns of the past, which is pretty much what the Rust Belt represents.

The question is, when/if(?) Hillary leaves the race, do they regard Obama as less or more of a risk than McCain? Any thoughts?

More of the argument is here,

What do you think?

Comments

Considering Obama is up 9 in the most recent SUSA poll for Ohio, and has been beating McCain pretty handily in recent PA polls, I'd say he's fine. These people are out of jobs and out of luck, but they're not stupid. They know that the steel industry isn't coming back, they know they have to learn how to use computers. They're not troglodytes.

Obama will do well enough with these voters, especially if he puts Edwards or Webb on his ticket.

Posted by Craig | May 23, 2008 11:38 AM

I think in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't boil down to dislike of Obama. It is easy to point to it being his fault in some form, because he holds a lead, and frankly, should arguably be doing better in these states. However, as someone with Kentucky roots, white women in particular, including every white woman in my family, LOVE the Clintons. They despise what Bill did with the whole Monica Lewinsky spiel, but if anything it made their love of Hillary stronger. People forget that this was our national family for eight years, and in many ways is ingrained in our consciousness. In the book, The Political Brain, Drew Westen talks about how people vote who they relate to and who they feel comfortable with; I am sure many of these women (perhaps including my mother) feel they share a lot in common with Hillary because its simply what they know.

Posted by Todd | May 23, 2008 11:45 AM

It's much simpler than that, it's a regional and cultural racism coupled with familiarity of the Clintons.

In non Appalacian white states Obama wins.

Posted by TDE | May 23, 2008 11:46 AM

I found the linked Barron's article interesting but find serious fault in the linkage of percentages from Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Those percentages don't represent alienation of voters over a period of time, they represent the percentage of the state that is in the cultural/social/economic region we designate as Appalachia.

Conflating Appalachia and the Rust Belt inevitably leads to drawing wrong conclusions. Their inter-relationships are complex, due to rural-to-urban migrations, but the approaches - political and economic - to each must be thought through independently just as the possible solutions to the problem of each area must be.

Obama is quite capable of reaching into the Rust Belt successfully in his first campaign. Applachia will respond in his reelection campaign, but only if he is the success I think he will be in his first term

Posted by Larry McD | May 23, 2008 11:52 AM

Yes and no. Fundamentally, I don't think his losses there are about race. I think it is more about a world outlook. As Sen Webb said yesterday, this is a group that perceives itself as threatened and damaged by affirmative action. Furthermore, this is a group that is scared for the economic future. They know they are hard-working, but they also are beginning to suspect that (unlike in previous decades) that won't cut it.

So then we see our candidates: Sen Obama, young, suave, intellectual, someone to whom doors have clearly opened (not that he hasn't worked hard, but it takes a degree of luck to go from state senator to Presidential nominee on a major party ticket in less than 5 years). And Sen Clinton: older, 'scarred,' has been humiliated on a public scale, but still comes back, incredibly resilient.

If you are a (using broad, broad generalities here) white, working class guy with a family to raise and are worried about your future, who appeals to you on an emotional level? The fellow who walks on water and makes it look easy? Or the woman who's had her share of bad breaks, but is still standing?

It's not about race or economics, it's about aesthetics and narratives.

Posted by Andrew Ferris | May 23, 2008 11:55 AM

Personally, I think that it's wrong to discount racism. Since factories in the Rust Belt took advantage of the great migration to break strikes, there's a lot of lingering inherited racism. Of course, the lingering union sentiment also makes it pretty strongly Democratic. I'd be surprised if Obama doesn't do better against McCain in these areas than he has against Clinton.

And yeah, the Rust Belt is not Appalachia.

Posted by Ryno | May 23, 2008 12:00 PM

I don't think folks in the Rust Belt are afraid of the green movement -- on the contrary, I think they're *hungry* for green manufacturing jobs, pining for them. They know that amazing economic opportunity lies in building wind turbines and solar panels and alternative cars. If Obama had campaigned there and really stressed one of his strongest policy platforms -- the development of "green-collar jobs" -- I think he'd have done well. This would be a good strategy for him going forward.

Posted by Carrie A. | May 23, 2008 12:03 PM

Marc posted a very telling map once, of the counties in which Clinton won at least 65% of the vote. With a few isolated exceptions, these counties described a clear, continuous swath from western New York, through western Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and Ohio, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc. and terminating in northern Mississippi.

Now comes an explanation that this continuous chunk is actually two patterns. South of the Mason-Dixon line, it's about race. North of the Mason-Dixon line, it's not race - heaven forbid! It's people "afraid of what he represents" - it's "aesthetics and narratives."

I'm not buying it. Certainly not all of Clinton's support is from racism, but in every state in America - not just in the South - the proportion of people who told exit polls they voted because of race correlated well with Clinton's level of support. The policy space between Clinton and Obama on domestic issues is pretty narrow; in any part of the country where he can't get a foothold, Occam's Razor suggests that race is a factor.

Posted by Allan | May 23, 2008 12:04 PM

I think obama can win the rust belt. I think that while many voters would rather have hillary over Obama, those voters will want Obama over McCain once they find out where they stand on the issues. Plus, don't under-estimate Obama's turnout machine. He's got major voter registration drives planned for all 50 states.

Plus, this is going to be a horrendous year for republicans anyway, so obviously Obama has the advantage of not being a republican.

Finally, just because you win (or lose) a state in a primary, doesnt guarantee you'll have the same result in a general. My point is, Obama can and will win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey etc...

Florida might be tougher but if he can sweep the so called "rustbelt" and win in VA and CO as well as NM, he can afford to lose Florida although I'm sure he'll contest for every vote in every state.

Posted by jb | May 23, 2008 12:06 PM

Another point that I do not hear mentioned often by many in the Beltway crowd is:

If "hard working white voters" are choosing Hillary Clinton in the American rustbelt because of racial issues and the subtext race brings to this election, then why should we assume Hillary would hold on to these voters in the Fall?

Are'nt these voters more likely to vote for the old white guy who happens to be a certified American hero then the ivy league, not baking cookies in the White House, Senator from New York?

To defeat McCain's maverick, straight talk style of politics in November will take a political
movement i.e. Obama's call that the American people claim thier stake in our Government

Posted by Logan Lee | May 23, 2008 12:09 PM

From TDE:

It's much simpler than that, it's a regional and cultural racism coupled with familiarity of the Clintons.

Nailed it.

Posted by that colored fella | May 23, 2008 12:16 PM

First, I think these folks are afraid of what he represents as far as the youth movement...

My mom is a 78-YO yellow-dog Democrat who voted for Clinton twice, but she got all melancholy watching Bob Dole's concession speech back in 1996. When I asked her why, she said:

"Well, I'm just realizing that no one from my generation (WWII) will ever be President again. From now on, the President will always be someone from the Baby Boom generation. I'll get older, and the President will get more and more younger than me. It's something that just hit me and I guess I just wasn't prepared for the realization."

If Obama wins, same thing. Even if he totally screws the pooch, and becomes a one-term wonder like Carter, the GOP will run another Gen X candidate against him in 2012. The reign of the Baby Boomers will be over. They know it, and it freaks them out. Especially those guys in WV, PA, and OH: They already feel left behind economically by globalization, left behind racially by equal rights/AA, and then Obama completes the trifecta by leaving them behind generationally.

Posted by zacksback | May 23, 2008 12:28 PM

The answer is obvious, in that the question is so startling. No. This possibility is so novel, that few people in the Rust Belt or elsewhere would have thought of it, thus used it in their deliberations on who to vote for.

Don't think so deeply next time.

Second part of the question: Obama is ahead in Ohio by 9 points according to SUSA today, against McCain.

Posted by KathyF | May 23, 2008 12:28 PM

All of the people falling over themselves to pretend that this isn't about race are either being disingenuous or have no familiarity with the region. As a person who was born and still spend a good deal of time in rural Virginia I can and will say unequivocally that racism is a huge factor in Obama's numbers in Appalachia. I do not believe that this carries over to the Rust Belt in a significant way.

We need to shift our manufacturing base to alternative energy and higher efficiency products which is a win-win for us. This has been pointed out since the 70s. Had people listened then, the US would be the dominant player in solar and wind, the Rust Belt would be thriving, and plug in hybrids would be taking the sting out of increased oil prices.

Ideologies need to fall to the wayside on this issue in favor of pragmatism and self-preservation. We need a heavily subsidized push towards renewables and less energy intensive products, funded by either an emissions tax or the auction of emissions credits.

It's a shame that so much of the Republican base has been brainwashed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=417

Posted by Jon | May 23, 2008 12:33 PM

Since you rarely have comments anymore, I'm using this thread to talk about your prior post on the FL/MI debacle.

On the one hand, this primary has been such a travesty for these two states, I'm not sure what state would want to go through this again 4 or 8 years from now.

On the other hand, whether or not the DNC gets the punishment they want, they have already shown themselves to be impotent in this whole process. Any state willing to risk fallout from moving up their primary or violating some other DNC rule, will do so knowing the DNC has little control over it.

Chaos is inevitable until all the states enter into some kind of agreement to create an orderly, rational primary system that elevates picking the best general election candidate over individual states' interests. That is, after all, supposed to be the object of this whole exercise. Perhaps regional primaries would be best. Screw Iowa and NH. Definitely, definitely, definitely get rid of proportional representation and go winner-take-all. Eliminate caucuses. Eliminate superdelegates.

Of course, these are the Democrats we're talking about. So that'll never happen.

Posted by Katherine | May 23, 2008 12:44 PM

I think much of it has to do with the strength of the Clinton brand and nostalgia for the economy of the 90's among those hurting in the rust belt.

That's why I am skepitcal that a lot of Hillary's support will ultimately go to John "I don't know much about the economy" McCain on election day.

The trade issue will be Obama's ace-in-the-hole in the rust belt. The clintons saw the writing on the wall and flip-flopped on the issue. But McCain will not be able to do so.

This year people are going to be voting their pocketbooks more than their cultures.

It's getting that bad out there.

Posted by RKA | May 23, 2008 12:48 PM

Obama up by 9 points in Ohio, per SUSA. What rust belt problem was that? It's "Appalachia" pure and simple.

Posted by Mimikatz | May 23, 2008 1:12 PM

I agree with Mr. Ferris that Clinton's triumph in the rust belt is very much about aesthetic and narrative. Clinton did a remarkable job of casting herself as the scrappy, scraggled and scarred fighter, championing the working class. This image contrasted perfectly against Obama's change-oriented ethos. If Obama represents change, then he also represents the knife that is amputating this atrophied portion of the U.S. economy.

However, once Clinton is out of the race, Obama should be able to make big strides among this set by explaining how change can be good for those suffering from the passing of U.S. manufacturing (green econony, but also, crucially, improved education for the next generation of rust-belters).

Obama has to make a strong economic case to these people, because otherwise McCain can easily pick up right where Clinton left off. McCain has a strong bio to make a similar aesthetic and narrative appeal to the one that was so successful for Clinton.

Posted by James Garren | May 23, 2008 2:00 PM

Ockham's razor is fine and well when there's reason to believe that there's a single root cause, but what's the argument for why these explanations are mutually exclusive?

Like everywhere else, Appalachia has tolerant people and bigots, and people who loved the Clinton presidency and those who didn't, and even individual people could have multiple reasons for voting the way do.

There's good evidence that there's a generational gap, and a gender gap, and a race factor, and an income/job factor add it all up and you get a 40 point win for a candidate in 2 states that isn't replicated anywhere else.

Posted by J K | May 23, 2008 5:07 PM

These are common-sense folks who believe that you work hard and are rewarded for that. They see in Hillary a woman who has paid her dues (in life experiences) and who knows how to relate to them.

She has talked honestly to folks like us and we believe her. We also remember the Clinton years as much better than the ones with Bush.

We are not all racists. I would love to have an African-American president. However, I do not like the way the Obama campaign has acted towards Hillary and towards women.

Mostly, I think he is a talented person who has very bad timing. If he doesn't win this election (which he won't without HRC) he will lose big and be a has-been. He would have done everyone a big favor by at least serving out one Senate term.

Posted by nan white | May 26, 2008 1:10 AM

What do you mean Obama can't win in the Rust Belt?

He won Wisconsin. He won Iowa. He won Illinois. And he came damn close in Indiana, which is a very conservative state with as mixed a legacy regarding race as any other state.

These are not only Rust Belt states, theyr'e overwhelmingly WHITE Rust Belt states.

So I'll put a different interpretation out there.

The political traditions and diverse ethnic cultures of the Upper Midwest responded to globalization differently than those cities in the Detroit-Youngstown-Pittsburgh-Buffalo region---combining an instistence that local manufacturing and local places matter with concret actions to grow critical green infrastructure AND capitalize on global trade opportunities at the same time.

The Center for Wisconsin Strategy developed a method to compete by targeting high-paying manufacturing jobs (which is working). Meantime, Detroit (or rather: Ford, GM and Chrysler) broke trust with American national interest by making SUVs and gas-guzzling vehicles for three decades after the writing was on the wall. And exporting jobs at the same time.

Job loss is endemic and ongoing across the Midwest. It's how different states responded that mark the difference. Where divide-n-conquer, gimme-mine-now 'economics' rules the corridors of power, screwing white workers of Appalachian descent was just as attractive as screwing black UAW workers on Detroit's auto-assembly plants.

The corporations and politicians that facilitated and enabled the process of disassembling the engine of American economic power have a lot to answer for.

Two thoughts:
1. Green businesses benefit local economies systemically and in terms of the bottom line.
2. There are those that look for a solution, and those that look for someone to blame.

If Ford & GM can convince politicians that labor unions and 'regulation' are the enemy, rather than, say hypothetically, their own inability to produce fuel-efficient vehicles that people want to buy, Toledo will bleed jobs because decisions were made to actively throw them away.

If politicians like Hillary Clinton can convince white Kentuckians and Pennsylvanians that Sen. Obama is cause and benficiary of their white powerlessness, they'll be unlikely to vote for that upstart slickster who got the fancy education none of the Ivy League schools ever offered to anyone from Hazard Hollow, KY.

Two points follow:
1. The rupture in the American fabric is caused by coastal intellectual and economic actors who've felt free to leave out and leave behind communities in Appalachia and the Rust Belt, and have done so for short-term gain and against the national interest. I give you NAFTA; I give you Iraq.
2. Political Culture Matters. Scandinavian influenced, Progressive-rooted governance in the Upper Midwest has meant heavily Germanic states like Wisconsin and Minnesota keep electing and re-electing Jewish Senators. Hmm. The multi-variegated ethnic patchwork isn't closed to participation by folks who display some difference, be it race or ethnicity or religion or status. Those rural white Iowans so actively derided and mocked early this campaign . . . voted for Obama. Biggest thing was overlooking his big-city Chicago thing, not his race. Des Moines looked at what Obama did in Springfield. I give you Jesse Ventura; I give you Paul Wellstone.

I give you Barack Obama.

But don't ever tell me Rust Belt Folks are afraid of environmentalists or globalization or young people. That's who we ARE.

It's the national economic and political-cultural context---how that's enabled ruptures and breaks of responsiblity to the industrial heartland and its constituencies. And it's how two overlapping regions have responded to that rupture and to opportunities at home and abroad.

Posted by johnsturgeon | May 27, 2008 9:51 AM

http://www.hairstylestop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/kardashian.jpg
And Kim Kardashian braved the California heat to head out to dinner with her booty and her beau hunk Reggie Bush not far behind. The two were spotted having a romantic dinner at the hip Koi restaurant where by all accounts their love bird fest was still going strong. Kim has been known to be a D-lister who loves loves loves her track suits, and it looks like she put the pink velour away for the night and glammed it up. She is wearing a form fitting satin gown and has sleeked her hair in glossy bone straight locks. This look is much easier to achieve if you already have straight locks, but some straightening serum and a wide flat iron will do the trick as well. Use the serum on your hair right after the shower, and blow dry with a flat paddle brush. Run the flat iron over your hair, just running it down from root to tip. If your hair is a little stubborn for the straightener, leave the heat on a little longer. Spray some anti-humectant on your locks once you ve finished that, and then run the flat iron over yo
ur hair again. This will lock in both shine and anti-frizz control, and will give your hair an extra boost of straightening. For a sleek look like Kim, spritz on some shining gloss for a finish.
Welcome to the Hairstyles Top. Here you will find the latest top hair style pictures, and advice for new hairstyles: sedu hairstyles, short hairstyles, teen hairstyles and layered hairstyles, etc. Lots of celebrity haircuts.

Posted by Gabearaburelp | July 19, 2008 1:37 PM

up
foto and video sex

Posted by kolikovaa | July 21, 2008 4:22 AM