Obama ahead of McCain by nine in Ohio, and ahead in PA as well, by eight. Even up by seven in VA. So much for "the Obama can't win swing states" argument. SUSA has been very reliable the last few election cycles. That makes me feel better, because I had been worried about a few polls showing that McCain was ahead by a lot in those states. I think Obama may be getting the "winner's bump." Still, McCain is outperforming the republican party in general, so there's not a lot of comfort to be had there.
Interesting breakdown of potential VPs:
Edwards rates as the most popular VP choice of the random assortment tested; I didn't really think he'd add that much to the ticket. Curiously, the GOP VP choice seems to have less effect on the tickets' strengths. Rendell polled a lot higher in PA, of course. I suspect that Sebelius and Hagel suffer from poor name recognition. BTW, how awesome is it that they are polling Hagel as the Dem VP?
8 comments:
So you don't buy that Obama has a problem getting the vote from working class whites? I'm still wincing from Obama's comment about folks clinging to God and guns. For someone so smooth, ouch. Which makes me think it was genuine. And I see this attitude as one of the major problems of the Democratic party.
Back in 2006 I had a blog post where I predicted the next President would listen to Country music. What I was talking about was some populism that a Gore or Kerry couldn't pull off. Edwards might bring some populism that would help appeal to some folks who are a tough audience for Obama.
Obama did just fine in Oregon, which is pure white and has an average income almost exactly the same as KY. He won in the <$50,000 income bracket. He's won in a lot of states where there are lower class whites. Where he has lost, by large margins, are the Appalachian regions, where race has been more of a factor, and which also tend to be poor.
Obama has a problem with poor racist whites, not with "working class" whites.
Yes, it's a regional/racism problem, not a poor problem. I can't stand the name "working class", by the way. I work every day to maintain my lifestyle. I resent the idea that I can be distinguished from those who work.
I don't fool myself into thinking I am not more privileged because I am, but I still resent the implication.
Matt, hate to break it to ya, but you are the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. :)
Do you prefer "blue collar" and "white collar"?
Edwards has certainly billed himself as a populist, but he is even less "working class" than Matt.
James, I think it is useful to distinguish between being fabulously wealthy and being super-fabulously wealthy, if that's your point.
So yes, call that Blue Collar/White Collar. But let's not pretend that half the country doesn't work.
10 of the 11 richest Senators are Democrats, and they bill themselves as advocates for the poor. Not that you can't be rich and care about the poor, but it's in interesting fact. Congressional Democrats are richer than Congressional Republicans by a statistically significant margin.
Sorry to comment and disappear. Haven't had much time.
I stand corrected on the "working class" whites comment.
What is the significance of the <$50,000 income bracket? What is that supposed to indicate?
I'm still bothered by his condescension.
Post a Comment