A White, Working-Class State for Obama
By every reasonable measure, the election's over. The math doesn't lie, and since North Carolina, the flood of superdelegates and Edwards delegates have put Obama on track to seal this thing up by early June. The tenor of the campaign has shifted, and with attacks on Obama by Bush, we've entered general-election mode. Hillary hasn't explicitly conceded, but in the new positive incarnation of her campaign, we can hear the concession. So once again, Oregon's vote looks to come too late to affect the election.
But that's just if you look at the numbers. In an equally important dimension--the battle of perception and narrative--Oregon could save the day for an Obama campaign. For months, a meme has been developed by lazy pundits who say Obama has lost the blue-collar white vote. Obama got killed in West Virginia, true enough, but since when did West Virginians stand in as representative of all white voters?
Enter Oregon. Forget the People's Republic of Portland--the Beaver State
is plenty hardscrabble. 
Our median income is nearly $2,000 below the national average,
our per-capita income is lower than the national average, we have more people in poverty, and we regularly have higher unemployment. And of course, we're bone white--90.5%, tenth whitest in the nation. Come tomorrow night, Obama will have notched another primary thanks to the broad support of whites, and pundits will be reminded that Obama did well with that demographic in Connecticut, Maryland,
Missouri, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
And let's not forget the 75,000 who showed up yesterday to watch him speak. The mostly-white crowd provided an undeniable visual for those who want to pigeonhole Obama. How to reconcile the idea that he is unpalatable to whites when he can--as a primary-election candidate--draw one of the biggest crowds in recent political memory?
(Admittedly, it appears Obama does have a problem in Appalachia. Where he does poorly among whites are in the mountains running from Pennsylvania southward [read this fine post for a fine-texture analysis, including a stark map.] Part of this is cultural and historical, and part of it points to another reason he does poorly in certain states. He does worse with older voters in general, and particularly with older whites. West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio all have an older population, and West Virginia, where he got killed, was the oldest.)
Oregon's central role in this election won't be putting Obama over the 50%-mark in pledged delegates (though we probably will do that). Rather, it's in reminding everyone that his broad base of support includes whites and poorer voters. Obama came to Oregon needing to show the depth of this support. Tomorrow night, that will rightly be the story.
___________
PHOTO: Tobiascoyote
|
May 19, 2008 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (53 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 19, 2008 6:22:42 PM
I think it will. I think Oregon will cement it. You gotta have hope!
Posted by: Mjordan | May 19, 2008 6:24:16 PM
Yes, but did any of you see that the moment Obama left Oregon and landed in Montana, the real Obama spoke -- pro-nuke, pro-coal, pro-offshore drilling. How any Oregonian can vote for someone so out of step with our values is just amazing. Don't say some of us didn't tell you!
Posted by: backbeat, woman | May 19, 2008 6:25:59 PM
Her lauding of KKKarl Rove's math regarding her candidacy was the final, final final straw. Breathtaking.
She might have gotten a Hail Mary if she called for his arrest.
Posted by: backbeat, woman | May 19, 2008 6:40:49 PM
PORTLAND, Ore. An exclusive new KATU poll shows Sen. Barack Obama building his lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in Oregon's 2008 primary.
The poll, conducted by SurveyUSA exclusively for KATU News, showed Obama leading Clinton by 9 points among the 77 percent of likely voters who have already returned a ballot.
When taking into consideration all likely voters, including those who say they plan to return their ballot before the 8 p.m. deadline on Tuesday, Obama defeats Clinton 55 percent to 42 percent. That's a two-point increase for Obama since last week's poll.
(snip)
As of Monday afternoon, more than 440,000 Oregon Democrats had returned their ballots, or about 51 percent of the total number of registered Democrats. About 246,000 Republicans - or 37 percent of registered GOP voters - had turned theirs in by the same time.
Combined with an 19 percent turnout by nonaffiliated voters, total turnout for all voters is about 38 percent so far - well ahead of the 33 percent turnout at this point of the May 2004 presidential primary.
"It's thrilling to be involved in something that has so many people excited," Bradbury said.
http://www.katu.com/news/19084039.html
Posted by: Mjordan | May 19, 2008 6:48:26 PM
We'll see how thrilled you are if Obama is elected and then comes his energy policy. Of course he didn't know about Hanford when asked in Portland. He is NOT an environmentalist, never has been throughout his career, with a long record of pro-nuke involvment and support. Again, one last time, don't say you weren't warned! It's no accident that he voted for the Cheney energy bill -- he agrees with it!!!
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 19, 2008 7:03:30 PM
Per nukes, I happen to reject the implicit assumption that somehow thinking there's a place for nuclear energy is antithetical to progressive politics. There are other countries that are successfully using nuclear energy for electricity generation AND dealing responsibly with the rad waste (France, say). And refusing to consider nuclear power when the world is running out of oil strikes me as foolhardy.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 19, 2008 7:19:29 PM
Fivethirtyeight calls it at 13%, and Poblano has been more accurate than any poll. Put your money on the 12-14% margin.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | May 19, 2008 7:25:18 PM
Obama got killed in West Virginia, true enough, but since when did West Virginians stand in as representative of all white voters?
What does it say about our political system if Hillary and her supporters are right when they say the Democratic Party needs West Virginia to win? The party needs one of the most poorly educated states with a strong streak of racism running through it? Would that qualify for pandering to the lowest common denominator?
Posted by: DontStopHillary | May 19, 2008 7:27:24 PM
16.5+ million people deserve a voice in the General election.
Keep Running, Hillary. Even if you have to go Independent.
Posted by: Ashlander | May 19, 2008 7:28:47 PM
Are you going to break the news about Oregon to the East Coast media? Patrick Healy of the NYT just wrote a story calling us mostly white and "affluent," which was linked on Andrew Sullivan's blog this afternoon.
But when I looked at the Times story, the affluent bit had been taken out. I think now it just says we're "fairly liberal."
Does that mean we don't count? :-(
Posted by: Ashlander | May 19, 2008 7:33:05 PM
Aaack! The affluent bit is in there, midway through an expanded front-page story:
"Mr. Obama is expected to win sizably in Oregon, a largely white, affluent state with a fairly liberal Democratic base, while Mrs. Clinton is expected to win in Kentucky, which has a strong working-class vote."
I can't stand this.
Posted by: Jonathan Radmacher | May 19, 2008 7:35:08 PM
OK, mjordan, were you one of the 10 Hillary supports holding obnoxious signs and getting into with everyone possible, on Sunday afternoon?
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | May 19, 2008 8:57:10 PM
not that mjordan (you're kidding, right?) cares, but Obama's "pro-nuke" stand is based on the cavaet of being able to do something with the waste. his "pro-coal" is based on cleaning up that waste. as for off-shore drilling, it is to laugh.
the Midwest, where Obama is from, is not exactly blessed with the ability to depend on hydro like we are. they have been forced to rely on coal & nuclear. which is part of why he's going to push hard for new technologies, the ability to either clean up coal & nuclear (something i have dim hopes for myself) or leave them behind. imagine if our country really put an effort into research on clean, renewable energy. with Obama, that won't be something to imagine: it will happen.
and ANWR will be protected.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 19, 2008 9:25:16 PM
Well, somebody gets it.
Tonight, on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Newsweek's Howard Fineman:
"I think Oregon is significant because Obama is going to do well among all constituencies including the now-famous working-class whites under $50,000."
Posted by: Jamais Vu | May 19, 2008 9:58:36 PM
Hillary's win in West Virginia is a product of the excellent organizing she did there. Obama--rightly it would appear--concentrated his early efforts in Iowa. As they say: this is chess, not checkers.
Oregon is essentially "Appalachia by the Sea." Both states have a big city anamoly (Portland & Charleston) and their big college towns (Eugene & Morgantown) outside of which they have almost identical economies based on (mostly) small agriculture and struggling natural resource industries. The only real distinction is that WV has more impovershed miners while OR has more impoverished fishermen. Both are filled with former loggers.
Posted by: Ashlander | May 19, 2008 10:13:10 PM
Well said. Jamais Vu, would you consider sharing your view with the NYT?
I just wrote them myself to gripe about their "affluent Oregon" claim in tonight's story, "Obama Expected to Hit Milestone in Tuesday's Votes."
The editor's email is nytnews@nytimes.com...
Posted by: Mister Tea Bags | May 19, 2008 10:56:09 PM
Barry: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Progressives: Here's one.
Barry: That'll be ninepence.
Hillary: I'm not dead.
Barry: What?
Progressive: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
Hillary: I'm not dead.
Barry: 'Ere, she says she's not dead.
Progressives: Yes she is.
Hillary: I'm not.
Barry: She isn't, technically dead yet.
Progressives: Well, she will be soon, she's very ill.
Hillary: I'm getting better.
Progressives: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
Barry: Well, I can't take her like that. It's against party regulations.
Hillary: I don't want to go on the cart.
Progressives: Oh, don't be such a baby.
Barry: I can't take her. Only she can say when she's dead.
Hillary: I feel fine.
Progressives: Oh, do me a favor.
Barry: I can't, she'll think I'm sexist.
Progressives: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? She won't be long.
Progressives: I promised I'd be in Iowa, they knew she was dead months ago.
Progressives: Well, when's your next round?
Barry: Thursday.
Hillary: I think I'll go for a walk.
Progressives: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
Hillary: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[Barry glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Hillary with a whack of his club]
Progressives: Ah, thank you very much.
Barry: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Progressives: Right.
Posted by: Carol | May 19, 2008 10:59:45 PM
Thanks Ashlander for the NYT heads up. I just sent an email, relying on Alworth's stats, correcting the Healy op ed. Just for the record, Obama will win those "hard-working white voters" here, but I suspect Senator Clinton will tell the world in Kentucky that only she wins such voters.
Posted by: Ashlander | May 19, 2008 11:19:59 PM
You're welcome, Carol. Thanks so much for doing that!
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 20, 2008 8:21:44 AM
Oh yes, once again we get bombarded with the screwball notion that "working class" = "white". Never heard of the black working class? Latino working class? Asian working class?
Posted by: dartagnan | May 20, 2008 11:41:51 AM
"I happen to reject the implicit assumption that somehow thinking there's a place for nuclear energy is antithetical to progressive politics."
Hear, hear! Progressives want to achieve energy independence, but they reject every technology through which we might realistically attain it. Hydro power? No, kills fish. Wind power? No, turbines blight the view. Nuclear? No, too scary.
Here's news for my fellow progressives: Conservation and solar ain't enough to get the job done, and biofuels have trade-offs that could make them nearly as bad as oil or coal.
Posted by: ragold | May 20, 2008 12:33:26 PM
Check out the NY Times article now. I emailed the News Editors yesterday like a few people here when I noticed the affluent comment. The phrase was changed to "relatively affleunt" this morning but now the whole rich whites/ poor whites meme has been excised from the article. Nice job everyone.
Posted by: Ashlander | May 20, 2008 12:45:13 PM
Uh oh. Just checked and the Times is still saying:
"The arguments over the cold math of the nomination contest play out against a backdrop of two states that are likely to once more reveal deep divisions among Democratic voters: Oregon is largely white and relatively affluent, with a fairly liberal Democratic base, while Kentucky is more racially mixed and has a strong working-class vote."
That's the "Milestone" story, still on their front page and supposedly updated as of 12:12 pm ET.
[Sigh]
Posted by: Kimmy | May 20, 2008 1:18:45 PM
Solar will work, if we start beaming down from space. But that's long term. Short term, people are going to die, not in the US, but around the world. Thirty countries in food riots. Ayiyi, yes, nuclear! yes, coal! yes, anything but pouring petroleum into cars! We'll get them researchers a goin' and there will be better solutions soon enough. But for now... Anything Goes!
Asian working class? What's that! (sorry, I'm from Pennsyltucky.)
Posted by: r | May 20, 2008 1:20:54 PM
yeah but how many of these states blue collar whites are democrats anyway? not many. our democrat base is largely centered around portland and eugene and not exactly fishermen or ranchers.
Posted by: r | May 20, 2008 1:20:56 PM
yeah but how many of these states blue collar whites are democrats anyway? not many. our democrat base is largely centered around portland and eugene and not exactly fishermen or ranchers.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 20, 2008 1:51:28 PM
Asian working class? What's that! (sorry, I'm from Pennsyltucky.)
Come have a look around the east side of Portland and you will very quickly see that our substantial Asian immigrant population is hardly very affluent. I'm not talking about the descendants of the older immigrant waves, but the folks who've been arriving from SE Asia for the last 30 years.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 20, 2008 1:51:29 PM
Asian working class? What's that! (sorry, I'm from Pennsyltucky.)
Come have a look around the east side of Portland and you will very quickly see that our substantial Asian immigrant population is hardly very affluent. I'm not talking about the descendants of the older immigrant waves, but the folks who've been arriving from SE Asia for the last 30 years.
Posted by: joel dan walls | May 20, 2008 1:57:36 PM
That business about class and race again:
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), an Obama supporter, said Edwards would make a better running mate [than Hillary Clinton] because “he hasn’t made as many people angry. Some of the things she has said and done and her husband has said and done have disappointed people in a serious way. The comment that she was there for [the] white working class was divisive. I would hope there is a black and Latino working class she would be there for.”
Posted by: Tina | May 20, 2008 2:15:13 PM
Here's a summary of some good reasons to support Obama. http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html
Posted by: ragold | May 20, 2008 2:44:13 PM
Ashlander, you're right. Looks like the only change we'll get is from affluent to relatively affluent. What's now confusing is the paragraph claims predicted voter outcomes "once more reveal deep divisions among Democratic voters" but now we have Oregon as White and relatively affluent and Kentucky as racially mixed and working-class. I thought the theory went poor old Whites vote Clinton; young Whites vote Obama (among Blacks, urbanites, the college-educated, etc.). Here we get white (btw, are Hispanics counted as Whites? are Russians?) and relatively affluent Oregon following the Obama voter pattern and racially mixed and poor Kentucky following the Clinton pattern. The problem is the racial roles don't follow the Democratic voter pattern championed the last couple months. 'White Oregon votes Obama while Black Kentucky doesn't make sense.' And 'relatively rich Oregon votes Obama while poor Kentucky votes Clinton' is still disengenuous.
Posted by: ragold | May 20, 2008 2:51:59 PM
That second to last sentence should read, "'White Oregon votes Obama while Black Kentucky voted Clinton doesn't make sense.'" Thanks for listening.
Posted by: ragold | May 20, 2008 2:52:13 PM
That second to last sentence should read, "'White Oregon votes Obama while Black Kentucky votes Clinton doesn't make sense.'" Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Ed Bickford | May 20, 2008 3:20:13 PM
That NY Times article really burns me!
Both OR and KY have 90% White citizens, OR median income is at 96% of national and KY is at 84%, OR has 13% of citizens below the poverty line and KY has 16%. Yet the article compares them as
"two states that are likely to once more reveal deep divisions among Democratic voters: Oregon is largely white and relatively affluent, with a fairly liberal Democratic base, while Kentucky is more racially mixed and has a strong working-class vote."
I guess they had a point to make; damn the torpedoes (facts)...
Posted by: Ashlander | May 20, 2008 7:48:37 PM
Yes -- as Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."
They owe us a correction. Imagine being so arrogant about a place they're obviously not familiar with...:-(
Posted by: Film izle | Sep 17, 2008 7:40:27 AM
Oregon as White and relatively affluent and Kentucky as racially mixed and working-class. I thought the theory went poor old Whites vote Clinton; young Whites vote Obama
Posted by: medikal | Oct 24, 2008 1:13:39 PM
i don't know how much useful do it's become but my brain from it side.. film izle medikal
Posted by: thanx | Oct 30, 2008 1:23:33 PM
Oregon's central role in this election won't be putting Obama over the 50%-mark in pledged delegates (though we probably will do that). Rather, it's in reminding everyone that his broad base of support includes whites and poorer voters. Obama came to Oregon needing to show the depth of this support. Tomorrow night, that will rightly be the story.
thank you verym much
___________________________________
online film izle
Posted by: andyou | Nov 10, 2008 11:53:14 AM
yeah but how many of these states blue collar whites are democrats anyway? fashion
Posted by: seks hikaye | Nov 12, 2008 1:10:26 AM
i don't know how much useful do it's become but my brain from it sid..Seks Hikaye
Posted by: oto kiralama | Nov 12, 2008 7:44:13 AM
Thanks a lot
Posted by: adtech ile reklam 2.0 dönemi başlıyor ve Trkycmhrytllbtpydrklcktr r10.net seo yarışması | Nov 12, 2008 9:16:45 AM
thanks
Posted by: Kayıp Çocuklar Cenneti | Nov 12, 2008 11:57:40 AM
Thanks a lot
Posted by: Güzel sözler | Nov 12, 2008 8:55:48 PM
Thank you
Posted by: dilber koçarslanlı | Nov 14, 2008 3:53:59 AM
thanks man !!!
Posted by: Pink Glitter | Nov 14, 2008 1:00:04 PM
Good that Obama has won the election!!
Posted by: adtech ile reklam 2.0 dönemi başlıyor ve | Nov 16, 2008 10:51:46 AM
thank youu
Posted by: film izle | Nov 17, 2008 4:38:24 AM
Oregon's central role in this election won't be putting Obama over the 50%-mark in pledged delegates (though we probably will do that). Rather, it's in reminding everyone that his broad base of support includes whites and poorer voters. Obama came to Oregon needing to show the depth of this support. Tomorrow night, that will rightly be the story.
Posted by: Estetik | Nov 17, 2008 4:37:11 PM
Come have a look around the east side of Portland and you will very quickly see that our substantial Asian immigrant population is hardly very affluent. I'm not talking about the descendants of the older immigrant waves, but the folks who've been arriving from SE Asia for the last 30 years.
Posted by: lestatdelc | May 19, 2008 6:17:37 PM
Correction. Tomorrow night, that SHOULD rightly be the story. I would not hold my breath for that to occur.